Talk:Peanut/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ground Nuts Order of 1972

"The Ground Nuts Order of 1972" seems like a fake. Unless one "(unground)" should read "(ground)", it doesn't make sense.

• Precisely the point. See [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eating the whole peanut, shell 'n'all. Safe?

My father is trying to convinvce me that peanut shells are not meant for human consumption, something about dirt, blah, blah. He is just crazy or will I become ill from eating shelled peanuts?--Tothebarricades.tk 05:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

You should not eat raw peanut shells for sanitary reasons but if they are properly roasted or boiled they should be fine...as a practical matter you should thoroughly chew them first before swallowing. Actually peanut shells are a good source of indigestible fiber. 165.161.3.2 16:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Added stuff

I did two things in this article:

1. In the "See Also" section, i corrected a spelling mistake. (It said inventer instead of inventor) 2. Added a link to Charles Schulze's comic book, Peanuts.

--RocketMaster 08:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Peanuts and Health Concerns - Salt

Would someone please add the following info: (I can't edit this article due to my recent registration.)

Peanuts often have added salt, which can add extra sodium to an already high-sodium diet. For example, a daily serving of 30g of roasted peanuts accounts for 7.5% of recommended salt intake in the UK. Reducing salt intake around the world by 15 per cent could prevent almost nine million deaths between 2006 and 2015, says a new British study. Consuming unsalted peanuts is considered to be a healthier option in countries with high salt consumption.

sources: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/A-little-less-salt-could-save-8.5m-lives-study http://www.peanutsusa.org.uk/Europe/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.page&pid=132 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goobergoober (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Peanut/Nut allergies

I know the article says that people may have boht or just one, but I was wondering if it is just a coincidence, or if it is actually that many people have both, as everyone I know with either has both. Might it be prevelant that people have both with occasionally a person have one?

I don't know but the allergies article might help to clarify some of your questions. Note that AFAIK people with a strong allergic reaction to one food substance generally appear to be more likely to be allergic to other food substances Nil Einne 01:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a nut allergy strong enough to require me to carry an epipen, but I can eat peanuts with no problems. On the other hand, I am cautious with food in restaurants which is made with peanuts, as I'm not confident that enough people understand that it would be dangerous to use hazelnuts, say, as a substitute (I had a bad experience with a meal where one of the ingredients was supposed to be peanuts, but the chef used chopped nuts instead). I expect that people with peanut allergies who are not allergic to nuts will be cautious as well, which might partly explain why they seem to come together so often. 203.96.78.190 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC) REPLY: I to have peanut allergies. I do need an epipen although i can not eat peanuts but i can smell them because i am deadly allegic (for school i am writing my spech on it)

China fossils?

I have removed the following paragraph pending a more creditable scientific or historic source than the WorldwideGourmet.com website:

Curiously, a fossilized peanut between 10,000 and 100,000 years old has also been found in China, along with documentary evidence (according to the Worldwide Gourmet web site) that they were grown there on a large scale by the Chinese civilization [2] (unless it's a misclassified legume, or a legend that's making its rounds around the Internet or a hoax - the complete disappearance of peanuts from Chinese cooking for thousands of years before the reintroduction by the Portuguese would be hard to explain).

I couldn't confirm the story via Google search; no other site seemed to have anything about it. If someone else can come up with a source that confirms the story, put it back. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also ran across this in my research. It was in the paper by Mr. Yao. I kind of got the feeling that he was repeating it only so as not to hurt the feelings of his Chinese hosts. BTW sorry to dump my references at the bottom of the article. I wasn't sure what else to do.Steve Dufour 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Difference between nuts and legumes

Perhaps there should be a clarification of the difference between nuts and legumes. I do not see a clear explanation of why a peanut is not a nut.

I think the nut and legume articles should clarify any confusion although you might be right that we need to improve the article (hint hint) Nil Einne 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion persists, as evidenced, e.g., by the latest round of edits -- "

1. (cur) (last) 2008-01-05T16:36:02 152.71.195.173 (Talk) (35,343 bytes) (Corrected recent false statement regarding the link of peanuts to peas.) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 2008-01-05T16:32:34 152.71.195.171 (Talk) (35,339 bytes) (I felt it was neccessary to point out that a peanut is a pea and not a nut as this is not stated anywhere on this page and is a statement of undeniable fact.) (undo)"

I tried to write a clarificatory paragraph. I do think it is needed; it's a linguistic, not a botanical confusion, and will persist despite the helpful links to the legume article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbis 3 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Allergies

Perhaps the allergies section needs to be improved. AFAIK, even with people allergic to peanuts, their susceptibility varies. Some people would go in to major anaplythic shock even by coming in to contacts with a shell. Others can probably eat a nut or two and only have a minor reaction. Currently, the article appears to suggest all people allergic are of the former extreme type. Nil Einne 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The severity of future reactions is unpredictable in people with food allergy, particularly so with peanut allergy.

Unfortunately, experiencing only mild allergic reactions is no guarantee that a severe, or even fatal, reaction will not occur in future. Eg "Those suffering the most severe reactions tended to have had severe previous reactions, but it is notable that in two of the three fatal reactions and five of the six near fatal reactions, the previous event had not required urgent hospital treatment." (Macdougall CF, Cant AJ, Colver AF. How dangerous is food allergy in childhood? The incidence of severe and fatal allergic reactions across the UK and Ireland. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2002;86:236-239 [3]) Amruk 04:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Studies comparing allergies

On a different topic, has there been any analyses comparing peanut allergies in other countries? For example, peanuts are fairly common in Malaysia and Indonesia. They are served with Nasi Lemak on a roasted former and they are also commonly a part of satay sauce (therefore similarly to boiled I guess). Also, did the study comparing US vs China refer to genetic factors? It sounds to me as if it's easily possible genetic factors may be a significant reason for the difference between peanut allergies in China and the US. Was a Chinese population in the US used as the US group or simply a general population? Nil Einne 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)\

U.S. Department of Agriculture program for peanuts

I corrected the misinformation on George Washington Carver. Plantguy 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Peanuts grown in toxic soil

I was recently told that it is a common practice for farmers to plant peanuts in soil that has been over-farmed and is consequently high in pesticides and other undesirable substances, which then make their way into the peanut itself.

Is there any truth to this contention?

Sea haggish 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to me.Steve Dufour 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, this happens with most food grown from the ground (at least in North America), which is what makes organic food so popular among some. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So... About salted peanuts...

...How are they salted? It's a question that's made me wonder for a long time. Hoping someone here can explain it.

Hi there. From an article, at the straight dope, the peanut is soaked in a mixture of salt and water, and then roasted, leaving salt residue on the nut itself. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed {{verify}} tag

Hi guys. I've referenced a number of facts in the Allergies from peanuts section. There are a total of five in there, all of which are to journals (aka good, reliable sourcex). There are a couple of obvious things that I did not reference, but I think for the most part the iffy bits have been sufficiently referenced.

If someone feels the need to put the verify tag back, I would appreciate a note on my talk page after you have done so in order for me to deal with whatever problems there are.

-Frazzydee|✍ 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Saturated Fat

I don't know what raw peanuts have in terms of saturated fat, but roasted peanuts most definately do at about 8%. So why the statement that "peanuts are also high in saturated fat" was removed, I do not know...

You're very much right that peanuts have high saturated fat. I wonder why it was removed? .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Peanuts

Is a peanut a monocot or a dicot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.167.181.66 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Dicot. If you peel the skin away from the seed, your little goober will indeed split into two cotyledons, revealing a tiny, pale peanut embryo in between —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.251.222 (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Peanuts and Alergies

Question.... someone told me that the reason so many humans are alergic to peanuts is because the peanut was the last vegitable humans learned to eat or added to their diet. Is this true?Drachenfyre 06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, you'd expect to see similar levels of allergen activity in Tomatoes and Potatoes in the non-indigenous populations. Heck, according to that theory tomatoes ought be more allergenic, since those took a lot longer for the Europeans (and their trading partners) to consume. Since that isn't the observed trend, clearly something else is at play here.

Nutritional Value Section

"To minimise this problem, make sure to obtain your peanuts from a reputable source, and store the peanuts in a cool dry place such as the refrigerator or freezer." Something off about this statement... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lailaiboy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I removed the highly misleading part about nuts being good for you, when a peanut is actually a type of bean and the gov's survey is about nuts, the section read like an advert without good sources. Hope I just put this comment in the right place - Anon, 12th Jan 2011

Peanut "shelf-life"

That is, how long can a peanut stay in a relatively dry and cool environment before it becomes inedible or unhealthy? If anyone has this information, or knows where to find it, I believe it should be added to the article. Paul^C/_T+ 04:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends very much upon the conditions under which the nuts are kept, but the answer is probably several years under good conditions, and only weeks under poor conditions. This is only opinion from experience. Can anyone find a reliable source? Dbfirs 12:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

external links

I took out some external links. The following I don't think are good ones as EL, and could possibly used for inline citations or just not be included at all:

• National Peanut Board - Represents America's Peanut Farmers

Too country-centric, not really any information that I saw with a quick look

• Changes to USDA peanut support programs under 2002 Farm Bill

Ditto for country-centric

• International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

This one would be much better as an in-line citation.

WLU 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Science article, June 29, 2007

Preceramic Adoption of Peanut, Squash, and Cotton in Northern Peru Tom D. Dillehay, Jack Rossen, Thomas C. Andres, and David E. Williams (29 June 2007) Science 316 (5833), 1890. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1141395] 24.20.245.71 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

3-lobed peanut

I can't find any reference to the 3-lobed peanut outside of WP or mirrors. I'm deleting the section but leaving the info here in case such a thing really exits and it should be restored. Robert Brockway 04:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

===Three-lobed peanut===

A three lobed peanut found in Warsaw.

Certain cultures believe in medicinal properties of three lobed peanuts. Specifically, the Zoroastrians believe that God imbues each three lobed peanut with a week of luck for anyone that eats it. Many Filipino cultures believe that the three lobed peanut, if fed to a duck, will produce double-sized eggs suitable for super-balut.

The three lobed peanut is known to be a hybrid derivative of traditional peanut blended with the black soybean. This rare hybridization occurs less than once per 20,000,000 offspring.

Agree with removal since I'm skeptical of the rarity/origin claims and not sure if the beliefs are particularly notable. However, "three-lobed" (and four, for that matter) peanuts do exist - the "lobes" correspond to the number of seeds within the pods, which as the article text says, contain 1 to 4 seeds. AUTiger » talk 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional value of 100g of peanut

Hello! In the german article it says (Inhaltsstoffe und Nährwert pro 100 g, ca. three screens down) that a 100g of peanut have a nutritional value of 389kcal/1628kJ, whereas the english article states that the respective values are 570kcal/2390kJ. Can anyone tell me which information is correct? Thanks in advance! --82.207.235.131 (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is negligible. It would be nice to either pick one and use it or explain why there are two. Were these the result of two different tests? If so are they referenced?

570kcal / 2390kJ * 1628kJ = 388.3 kcal

Gzusphish (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they are very different (Gzusphish has misunderstood the "/"), but I see that the German article now has a much higher figure. Obviously, different peanuts will give different values, but they are now close enough to be within experimental error. They are given with unrealistic precision, but presumably some source gives these figures. Dbfirs 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is botany really that lewd?

I'm no botanist, but is it really appropriate to refer to a peanut as a "woody, hard, arousing, orgasmic indehiscent legume"?

I wonder why this page is vandalized so often.12.192.132.130 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Export data

So I was going to remove the cite tag on the Trade section, and all I found were contradictory data. (an article on a blacklisted site) confirms the current info, but it's unclear where it's sourced from - it might simply be parroting this article. http://www.soyatech.com/peanut_facts.htm is more indefinite, noting that ranks vary due to market conditions. http://www.ascof.com/tatol/special.htm gives yet another ranking (again, thinly sourced). http://www.springerlink.com/index/F3X34802T7356724.pdf is a pretty solid looking source -- but from 1981. More recent data either aggregates peanuts with other oilseeds or doesn't break things down by country. 216.103.50.52 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tree Nuts

I cannot believe that there is no mention of tree nuts -- there are only tree nuts and ground nuts, no nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.142.8 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC) and peanuts are made from cow poop!!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.218.213 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why so much vandalism here? Since the semi-protect was lifted on March 11, there have been 50 edits. 23 of them were vandalism, 19 were reversions, only 8 could be called normal or productive edits.

All of the vandalism was by IP editors. 5 of the reversions were by IP editors. 2 of the productive edits were by IP editors.

I just reverted a vandalism made several edits ago but missed at the time. "sexnut" had been a synomym for peanut for almost a week. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cockernut?

I cannot find any evidence that cockernut is a synonym for peanut. So I deleted it from the list of synonyms. We have no citations for any of the synonyms, unfortunately. I see one reference online that cockernut is a "big" nut, probably the Anglification of the Dutch word for coconut. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this one got added, but we don't need citations for the synonyms that appear in most dictionaries, do we? Dbfirs 12:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

'Runner Group' section - South-Eastern / Balkan?

I feel this section needs an edit of some form but unsure what. This is because it doesn't make sense. Should the first sentence read 'Since 1940, the Balkan region has seen a shift to production of Runner group peanuts., but then why South-Eastern in the first place, and SE to who? As there is no indication of peanuts being grown in the Balkans region elsewhere in the article, does this need adding or is Georgia correct? And the questions go on - is anyone with greater knowledge of the subject than I able to see what's wrong and correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimdino (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Amendoim

Amendoim redirects here but there is no mention of amendoim in the page. It's nice when there are redirects if there is some explanation for the redirect in the page. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aspergillus flavus

Sorry about this, but exactly how likely is this? I'm totally paranoid about my food, and I've been eating roasted peanuts for the last few weeks... 86.46.219.106 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you live in a developed country, you shouldn't need to worry. According to the Aspergillus flavus "A. flavus grows as a yellow-green mold in culture." So if you have to eat moldy peanuts for some reason, make sure the mold isn't that color. Here's some medical school's website's entry on the fungus. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Peanut oil

The section states "In fact, refined peanut oil is exempt from allergen labeling laws." does anyone know where on the globe this statement refers to. I'm tempted to remove it may well be wrong for many countriesPete the pitiless (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true in the USA, I put a <ref> to the FDA website - I will change the line to say in the United States. Psu256 (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program

In an entry about an international crop in an international encyclopedia do we need this much on U.S. policy and brands. If we had similar sections on all countries where peanuts were grown and consumed this would be a very tedious entry.- Suggest we edit this down to 2 or 3 lines at the mostPete the pitiless (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is exclusive to the USA which produces only about 5% of the world's crop of peanuts. If anyone knows detail of the varieties grown in China and India, then this information should be added. Meanwhile, it would be a pity to delete this (USA-biased) information because it will be of interest to many readers. Dbfirs 07:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

• NEW QUESTION* Could someone post (I'm unable to adequately describe it) what a peanut tastes like, and likewise I make this suggestion for all food related topics. With references to the cardinal flavors if possible (salty, sour, sweet, etc.)

Does anyone know if a peanut can grow underground?

• Yes. As the article clearly states, after the plant flowers, the stems elongate and penetrate the soil. Then the pods and seeds form several inches below ground. Hence, "groundnuts".

If im blind and i didn't see it excuse my lack of dedication, I didn't find any information about how peanuts are harvested...

• I was going to wait for someone else to answer but i got impatient and added the relevant information and a source to the article instead.

Origins

wIf you know about the origins of the peanut, please expand that section. -- Sowelilitokiemu

Ground Nuts Order of 1972

Removed that nonsense about "The Ground Nuts Order of 1972" - regardless of whether it may be authentic or not, it seems like fairly useless information.

Revert?

Would someone mind reverting the main article, the "fungus comment" is unneeded, and it looks as if it deleted actual information.

Ground nuts link at bottom

This just links back to the article, but under a different name. Isn't this some form of wiki faux pas?

UHHHHH...

january 29: where did the article go? Did you delete it by accident?

WTH? Someone needs to lay off the editing.

Found this at the top of this entry:

"The peanut, or groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) is an extremely irritating mutt, who barks and whines constantly and has been completely spoiled by Papa."

If anything qualifies for a "WTF" with Big Capital Letters, this is it. Someone undo this, please?

Free Market propaganda

"A major factor in this increase has been China's move away from a communist economic system toward a free market system so that farmers are free to grow and market their crops as they decide"

Is this propaganda necessary? Maybe there's another way to state this. It makes it sounds like free market system give greater freedom to growers. Ask that to all the corn growers here in the US. They grow corn because the "free market" isn't so free and dictates they will get more gov't subsidy. Hence, they do not "decide" but rather the decision is made for them by the "free market".

Clean up the allergies section

The allergies section suffers from odd syntax, formatting errors, etc. Needs clean up badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.105.218 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Uses

Peanuts are also used in a wide variety of other areas, such as cosmetics, nitroglycerin, plastics, dyes and paints.

I can find cosmetics, dyes and paint. But plastics and nitroglycerin bugs me. I can't find any useful source 90.185.194.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

List of countries

The following good-faith addition was moved from the main article:

Philippines

Peanut is cultivated in the philippines in small portion by planting it in between crops. The local production in the philippines of peanut yielded just about 22,000 tons not enough for local consumption and exportation. Some of the local manufacturer of food that uses peanut as a main ingredient on their product have to import peanut because of the smalless of the seed yielded by the peanut in the philippines, so exportation of peanut is impossible to do in such small yield and size of the peanut. yeah

Should we have a list of every country that grows peanuts, or would this make the article too long? Dbfirs 07:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, but I've added a section on kabukim and Bamba in Israel. I'll endeavor to add English references to the kabukim paragraph later.—Biosketch (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Moche Peanut.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moche Peanut.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Import/Export Countries

The 'Trade' section lists Canada and the US respectively as both the primary importers and exporters of peanuts, alternately. It stands to reason that one of these assertions is incorrect. Which one is backwards?

69.164.203.47 (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Travis 06/07/12

More on refined peanut oil?

I am very curious as to how this works that refined peanut oil and be consumed but crude can not. Several years ago I accidentally consumed popcorn made with peanut oil and found out after the fact(I suffer from the allergy). Does anyone have more information on this from a good source? I'd be glad to expand it myself but don't know where to go for valid information. UselessToRemain (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxalates, Phosphorous, Xenoestrogens

Peanuts are rather high in oxalates (which may be involved in the formation of kidney stones) and in phosphorous (which may be involved in bone calcium loss). Peanuts (among other legumes such as Soy) also contain Xenoestrogens (which may affect the sexual hormones balance of young males negatively). Significant consumption is probably needed to achieve dangerous levels of those, though. We should probably mention these findings (with references to peer-reviewed study reports about them, of course)... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Roasted Peanuts = Salt & Maybe Trans Fats & more or less easy to Digest?

What about trans fats & Roasted Peanuts? What about salt in roasted peanuts, how much salt is too much? Are roasted peanuts healthier, because they maybe digest better than un-roasted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut#Health_concerns

Ee1518 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-contradictory Information

The world chart titled "Groundnut output in 2005" directly contradicts sourced information later in the article. The "Trade" section of the article states that "Georgia is the leading peanut producing state in the U.S., followed by Texas and Alabama, respectively." That chart, however, shows no such production in the US and actually shows New York as a leading peanut producer. Unless anybody can account for that chart, I think it needs to be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.228.64.159 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

useless photo

Okay, i am laughing at myself for even being this person, but: is it necessary to have a photo of a brand-name (Planter's, in this case) trail mix? For some reason this just strikes me as not neutral. i know, i know– there are far more important things to worry about in this crazy world.

But for some reason it really bugs me.

Just wanted to bring it up here instead of simply deleting it (it's utterly unnecessary under the 'nutrition' section, anyway) with wanton disregard for whoever thoughtfully searched for and posted that image.

With more than a small measure of embarrassment, ``h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.208.239 (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether something really bugs you is irrelevant. However, you do bring up a valid point in a rather roundabout way, that of a single brand placement and a particular product that is only part peanut, which brings nothing to the article and especially the section on nutrition. As such, I do feel that it is inappropriate, as it describes one mixed product and has nothing whatsoever to do with the article on peanuts directly or in regards to the nutritional value of peanuts. I suggest removal of that image. Now, we await consensus.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Support removal: not necessary; not neutral; looks out of place Rklawton (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I also think that the use of the photo is distasteful and even abusive a) mentioning a commercial product b) not on the topic would be better is in a section covering trail mixes and that had at least other producers. I don't think that we need decision process to realize the obvious. Turn that around and ask why should that particular photo be kept in place... 79.168.9.101 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

""The European Union is the largest consuming region in the world that does not produce peanuts. All of its consumption is supplied by imports.""

This statement contradicts an earlier one where under "Production" 2000/tons/year are credited to Greece, which is in the EU.

Either they do, or they don't, can't be both !

31.209.101.53 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition request for lead

from the current lead section :

Peanuts are known by many other local names such as earthnuts, ground nuts, goober peas, monkey nuts, pygmy nuts and pig nuts.[3] Despite its name and appearance, the peanut is not a nut, but rather a legume.

In Arabic language Peanuts are called فول سوداني 'Fūl Sudani' which translates in English to 'Sudanese beans"

Arabic Wikipedia 'peanut' article https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/فول_سوداني

Example of the word "Fūl" meaning bean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ful_medames

I suggest changing the paragraph to this:

Peanuts are known by many other local names such as earthnuts, ground nuts, goober peas, monkey nuts, pygmy nuts and pig nuts.[3] Despite its name and appearance, the peanut is not a nut, but rather a legume." In Arabic language peanuts are actually called 'Sudanese beans 109.66.26.40 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per MOS:LEAD. If anyone called them Sudanese beans in English, it may be worth adding, but not just because that's its literal translation from Arabic. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nutritional "Sugars" Set To 0.0g

I just wanted to mention that I noticed that the sugars in the peanut's dietary information has been set to zero.

This struck me as odd and I did some cursory searching that showed most sources would set that as a good deal higher (closer to '6g').

I'm not really familiar with the process of editing wikipedia entries, nor whether these edits need to be vetted, so I am passing on my concern to those who do know.

Jeremy 17:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejadmaster (talk • contribs)

Goober Peas?

Are peanuts really called Goober peas?

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

They are now. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

The page says that they can contain 1-4 seeds but recently i found a nut containing 5 so i would like to correct it. Proof can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZfCnlzdZ4 Doubledogdare610 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, four seems too few. Would be interesting to find the average and largest numbers, with reliable sources. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Youtube is not a reliable source. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

More evidence http://i.imgur.com/9rQKefK.jpg 75.76.68.167 (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Still not done: Really wacky outliers and incredibly rare mutant forms do not require amending the article unless verified in a way that is not original research or self-promotion.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We want a peanut gallery!

The cracker people let their food have one.

More reasonably, the pictures look crammed together right now in article space. They should have a proper home at the bottom, at least two of each three.

Yay? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan. But you're not trying to pull another shell game on us, are you?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who aspires to combine peanuts is a Roanoke Hustler. But I'm intrigued by the "another" part. Have we met? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, I just couldn't resist joining a pun-fest. So, how should we set up the gallery? Remove one of each of the pictures from the sections and use them to form the gallery?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds simplest. Unless there's a picture in here that's crucial to a section. If so, I don't see it. Maybe wait for a third opinion. And yeah, puns are fabaceaelous!

OK, not always. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoever thought to call the pictures section the peanut gallery you are a credit to your species. You have my sincere thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:C700:584:F819:B7:6A16:EEEE (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We couldn't have done it without you! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: George Washington Carver:

"George Washington Carver is well known for his participation in that program in which he developed hundreds of recipes for peanuts."

Exaggeration. George Washington Carver's uses for peanuts were copied from other sources. His importance is exaggerated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.155 (talk • contribs)

Do you have reputable sources that state and explain this?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nyctinastic movement of leaves

The leaves Nyctinasty at night. Should we add that to the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous lead material

Per WP:BRD, I edited, and have now reverted again, content provided by user Davidbertioli whose user page shows he is a plant geneticist specializing in peanuts. Although this expertise is no doubt valuable for the peanut article, I sense from the edit history he may be too dedicated just to this article and may be subject to WP:BIASED and risks of WP:OUTING. Please invest some time in other articles.

The sections below are open for review.

Lead information too detailed

China accounts for 37% of World production, Africa for 25%, India for 21%, and the Americas 8%. In Africa, remarkably, its production exceeds that of all other grain legumes put together, and it is an extremely important source of protein, energy, and iron (production statistics from 2013).

*Comment: the above nutrient information is not confirmed by FAOSTAT data, but rather is in the USDA tables which I provided. See the nutrient table which displays several minerals and vitamins with more significant Daily Values than iron. I also provided a more accurate FAOSTAT URL for 2013 production data (the most recent available).

As a legume, peanut belongs to the botanical family Fabaceae (also known as Leguminosae, and commonly known as the bean or pea family). Like most other legumes, peanuts harbor symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in root nodules. This capacity to fix nitrogen means peanuts require less nitrogen-containing fertilizer and improve soil fertility, making them valuable in crop rotations. It also accounts for the high protein content of peanut seeds. It is an annual herbaceous plant growing 30 to 50 cm (1.0 to 1.6 ft) tall. The leaves are opposite and pinnate with four leaflets (two opposite pairs; no terminal leaflet); each leaflet is 1 to 7 cm (⅜ to 2¾ in) long and 1 to 3 cm (⅜ to 1 inch) across. Like many other legumes, the leaves are nyctinastic, that is they have "sleep" movements, closing at night.

The specific name, hypogaea means "under the earth", because peanut pods develop underground, a feature known as geocarpy. The flowers are 1.0 to 1.5 cm (0.4 to 0.6 in) across, and yellowish orange with reddish veining. In structure, they appear superficially similar to the flowers of peas and beans. However, intriguing differences are seen. The ovary is not, as expected, enclosed by the petals, but is at the base of what appears to be the flower stem. In fact, this "stem" is hollow and is part of the flower itself. It is a highly elongated floral cup (termed a hypanthium), through which runs the style and at the base of which is the ovary. After fertilization, a stalk at the base of the ovary (termed a pedicel) elongates to form a thread-like structure known as a "peg". This pushes the ovary down into the soil where it develops into a mature peanut pod. Pods are 3 to 7 cm (1.2 to 2.8 in) long, normally containing 1 to 4 seeds.

*Comment: the above is botanical information not suitable for the lead per WP:LEAD. I created a Botany section and placed the information there. Also Davidbertioli, keep in mind we are writing an encyclopedia for a general reader, not for experts per WP:WWIN and WP:NOTJOURNAL.

Peanuts are similar in taste and nutrional profile to tree nuts such as walnuts, pecans, hazelnuts, and almonds, and they are often served in a similar ways in many Western cuisines. In long-term studies, the regular consumption of peanuts and tree nuts has been associated with health benefits including the reduction in heart and respiratory diseases and cancer.

*Comment: I copyedited this rambling section and replaced the USDA reference with a more precise URL from the USDA database. It is not appropriate to imply health benefits of peanuts or other nuts per WP:MEDRS. A rigorous review was provided by the FDA in 2003 and stands as the current status that positive evidence for any effect is insufficient.[4]

I will work to incorporate the content from Davidbertioli but it is not appropriate to fully revert any changes to content you add because you are a peanut expert.

--Zefr (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References for this Talk discussion

comments on recent edits and comments by Zefr

Although I think my actions fitted well into the "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle, I apologize to Zefr if he took offense at my initial reversion of his edits. The size of the edits, the very short, incomplete edit description, and the extreme brevity of Zefr Wikipedia user profile led me to the initial conclusion that the edit was probably overzealous and/or ill considered (from a quick look at edit history I think it was largest legitimate reduction in article size since 15th Jan 2015: an edit also made by Zefr). I wanted to avoid good edits being accumulated on top of ill considered edits. It would have been more difficult to revert damage whilst being considerate to other contributors. As is, it's clear that, although there were some problems introduced and deletions made, Zefr made a serious edit, overall I liked the restructuring made. I appreciate the comments made by Zefr above, although I don't understand why he is concerned about "WP:OUTING". I would appreciate more explanation to be able to understand better. Also I'm a bit mystified as to the request that I "invest some time in other articles". It's easy to see that this article can be improved quite easily, and (whilst I have never claimed any special privileges for being an "expert") I have a good knowledge base to do so. Whilst I will keep in mind that the "encyclopedia is for a general reader", and try to respect previous contributions, surely it makes sense for me to keep going and make the article better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbertioli (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

David -- WP:OUTING can potentially affect an editor's unbiased participation in improving the encyclopedia, per WP:5P2 which involves a main neutral principal of Wikipedia's WP:5P, WP:NPOV. You have chosen to publicly use your own name, identify your profession as a plant scientist specializing in peanuts, and individually focus on the peanut article. Outing enables critique (against you) by other editors who may resent that your own publications are used in supporting article information (on 13 October 2015, reference numbers 6,8,9 and 12 are your publications), and so may involve WP:PLUG (self-promotion) for your research, interpreted by some as more important or more credible than by competitive scientists. Outing also enables untoward activity from the public who may be negative toward peanuts, and by inference, negative toward your research or you personally. Just a few thoughts for now, but meanwhile, in my opinion, the peanut article has benefited from your participation. --Zefr (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peanut. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/gwca/expanded/peanut.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/recipes/peanutrecipes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

General Critique on the Article

Overall, the Peanut Wikipedia article as a whole contains a great deal of useful information. The Wikipedia article displays plenty of facts on peanuts that any member of the general public would find useful. It is in my opinion that the current state of this article is in good shape. But each section has room for improvement in the organization of facts, stylistic flow/clarification in some sections, and much more.

Organization

The statement that translates the word hypogaea found in the Botany section, second paragraph, would make better sense if discovered in the lead section. Emphasizing the peanut's pod as a geocarpy fruit focuses the reader on the biological facts.

Another way to improve the organization is by adding a small table that lists off the different cultivars for each of the six peanut groups. A list containing more than four or five items is tedious to read. A table or bullet point column list of the different cultivars would improve the reading experience.

Moving the section on Malnutrition closer to Nutritional value would create a better flow or transition to the next the topic in the article.

Coverage on Content

The article contains a biased view on peanuts grown mainly in the United States. A neutral coverage on peanuts is one quality an excellent Wikipedia article displays. The section titled Cultivars in the United Sates is long winded and too focused on American aspect of growing peanuts. Adding cultivars used by other countries in the world, such as India or Nigeria, remedies the biased tone in the article. If other countries use the same classification of peanut groups that Americans use, then there is a cause to change Cultivars in the United States to Cultivars Used Worldwide. The Peanut article does contain a small header with a link on Cultivation in China which to me seems out of place. If you include China and the United States, then you should mention other countries or the use of cultivars by the world as a whole. The section on China's peanut cultivation could use a small summary or body paragraph giving an explanation to the reader on what to expect after clicking on the link. If possible, combine the sub-article Peanut production in China with the main article on peanuts.

Adding a short origin story to each of the six American peanut group would improve the content. Only the Spanish and runner group peanuts have a short blurb describing their origin background.

Adding additional worldwide programs that associate with peanut production and not just the United States Department of Agriculture.

Additoinal Proposals

Revisiting the writing style of each section may be advantageous to the reader. Run-on sentences are found throughout the article and create confusion to what ideas/facts the writer is trying to get across.

Grammar and word choice, to me, has been a problem in the article and gets in the way of learning information of peanuts. The use of 'more,' 'like,' 'they,' and more.

The botany section can use a little tweaking and additional use of botany terms to describe the peanut scientifically.

Double checking and adding citations throughout the entire article.

In the foreseeable future, I will edit and add additional content wherever necessary to improve the scientific quality of the article.

--Greenthumb333 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating Elements Within the Article

Lead Section- This section requires supplement content and a different arrangement of all the sub-paragraphs. The first paragraph should focus on describing the peanut in such a way that the viewer gets a better idea on how the article is organized. The level of importance of each paragraph should descend in the lead section (so a quick description of what a peanut is, types of peanuts, and then the importance).

Structure - The overall structure is clear with good organization of headings and subheadings. There are two subheadings relating to nutrition that would make more sense if one preceded the other.

Balance - The peanut article focuses mainly on the cultivar section of peanuts where many detailed subheadings and description is given. The other sections lack substance or meekly compare to the cultivar section.

Neutrality - again from my previous critique, the article has a biased view of facts and use of peanuts by the U.S. The viewer may get a false impression that peanuts only have a great importance in the U.S., or more so than any other country when this is not true. There is a need for diversification and a neutral stance on the topic of peanuts.

Reliable Source - the article includes 67 references which are a good sign of reliability. --Greenthumb333 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Focus on US and the description of cultivars

I agree with Greenthumb333 that this article looks in pretty good shape, but that "The section titled Cultivars in the United Sates is long winded and too focused on American aspect of growing peanuts.". Also, the specific cultivars mentioned are out of date, and in any case too much detail for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest changing for an overview of the market classes, put within a global context. If there are not objections I can work on this. Davidbertioli (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Styrene

I read that styrene occurs naturally in peanuts in low concentrations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrene http://www.styreneforum.org/faq_index.html Styrene has hazardous health effects, it certainly is mutagenic and it might be carcinogenic. As far as I can tell from the second source the concentration of styrene is extremely low (trace amounts which could only be found with the most advanced technology for detecting specific molecules) and shoulnd't be a problem. Maybe someone who is knowledgable can write something about it? 145.132.75.218 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any quantitative evidence that the content of styrene in peanuts is significant. It's a derivative of the volatile organic compound, benzene, and may contribute a minor aroma quality to peanuts. The medical literature contains no history that scientists have perceived any toxicity danger to human consumers of peanuts in typical snack amounts of finished peanut products. I don't feel it deserves discussion per WP:UNDUE, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Zefr (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Zefr, Davidbertioli (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I stopped by this article out of personal curiosity, but noticed that the lead sentence is pretty awkward: Peanut […] is a crop of global importance. The first sentence in the lead of an article should almost always answer the question "What or who is [the subject]?". In this case, it feels like it's hijacked to overemphasize the importance of peanuts as a crop; it doesn't really tell the reader precisely what a peanut is. Moreover, it's redundant to the second sentence (emphasis added): It is widely grown in the tropics and subtropics, being important to both smallholder and large commercial producers.

It looks like the lead's trying to deal with peanuts as a plant (taxonomic context), as a crop ("nuts", oil, nitrogen-fixing), and cover the obvious comparison to and distinction from true nuts. In that context, it prioritizes the context of peanuts as a crop. I think that we might end up with better writing if we rewrote the lead to start with a short "general" paragraph and dive into specifics in its following paragraphs. I'm not sure where to start with that; in particular I don't want to simply switch to overemphasizing the taxonomic context—the easiest way to write a definitive lead sentence. Perhaps if we went with something more along the lines of The peanut […] is a legume, widely grown for its pods and oil? {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree the lead could be improved, and your suggestion is good. You could go ahead and edit it, perhaps after reviewing MOS:LEAD for the key guides, or post a draft here for other editors to review and work before posting to the article page. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the first sentence, very similar to Nihiltres suggestion (hope that's OK, please revert if not)

"Peanut, also known as groundnut and goober (Arachis hypogaea) is a legume crop grown mainly for its edible seeds"

Possible objections could be that this doesn't emphasise oil enough, or mention the use of the leaves as forage for animals, which is important in some regions, but I guess the first sentence should capture the main use? What do you think? Davidbertioli (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Other suggestions

Peanut, also known as groundnut and goober (Arachis hypogaea) is a legume crop grown mainly for its edible seeds or "nuts"

Peanut, also known as groundnut and goober (Arachis hypogaea) is a legume crop grown mainly for its edible seeds or "nuts" and the oil that is extracted from them

Peanut, also known as groundnut and goober (Arachis hypogaea) is an annual herbaceous plant and legume crop grown mainly for its edible seeds

Davidbertioli (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Reading FAOSTAT data for production and trade

Today, Crazy2be made a reference query on production and trade content. 2014 production data are now available but oddly only 2013 data remain for exports and imports. I have edited the "Production and trade" section accordingly and added a reference for export/import data which are accessed from a different location among domains, but admit a user has to carefully navigate the FAOSTAT pick lists to select data. --Zefr (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit Zefr! Trying to retrieve the data from FAOSTAT was confusing for me, their website is buggy, and I didn't realize they were called 'groundnuts, with shell' in their database. Fortunately, it looks like they are working on a new beta website, which is less buggy, although unfortunately still doesn't seem to support direct links into it. I've tried to clarify in the citation exactly what one must select to get the data described in the article, feel free to edit/clarify further :). Crazy2be (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to Botany section

There have been some recent changes to the Botany section. Sorry, but I think the changes introduced some inaccuracies, and overall weren't an improvement. For instance geocarpy is not a "flower formation". Also the citation for a classic publication on geocarpy was removed and replaced by citation to an encyclopedia. I have started to edit section, but still needs some work. Davidbertioli (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Encyclopedia of Life. It has errors and is a poor secondary reference. For instance it refers to the flowers as yellow, and they are not. Have restored the original primary references, a classic article by Ben Smith on geocarpy, and the Monograph of peanut species by Krapovickas & Gregory (both of which are available online free) Davidbertioli (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for improving it. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your edits too! I will take note of your comment on editorializing Davidbertioli (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I also replaced the reference to a site http://www.gbif.org/species/5353770 "Global Biodiversity Information Facility". Although it sounds like a good source, it really isn't. It is poorly written, eg "Pods are 3 to long, containing 1 to 4 seeds", and wrong in parts "'"nut" specifically refers to indehiscent fruit". If this were true then walnuts and hazelnuts wouldn't fall off the tree when ripe! Of course, they do. In fact, a nut refers to a fruit whose ovary wall becomes very hard at maturity.Davidbertioli (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Anatomy diagram(s) needed

A diagram showing the names of the parts of a peanut would be very helpful to add to this article. Here's an example of good labels for both the peanut and the flower. I added the subsection "Parts" to at least get a list started. -- Beland (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

At Wikimedia Commons, there is this drawing and this one. There are no photographs there that seem useful. --Zefr (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Jungle peanut

An heirloom variety supposedly known as the jungle peanut is being marketed and sold. I couldn't find much about it online. Does anyone know antthing about this type of peanut? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please unbold (UK) in lede, and the scientific name

2601:647:CB02:5034:7951:E339:C2FB:2C47 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The Peanut Institute

There is a reference to http://www.peanut-institute.org. This site was rebuilt and updated, so all references should be updated to point to https://peanut-institute.com/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsieNelson (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

At the end of the 'History' section there is a reference to the post WW2 British groundnut scheme in "West Africa". The linked page says that this took place in Tanganyika, which is definitely in the East of Africa, with a border on the East coast. So the 'West' should be replaced by 'East'. SFWalker (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 22:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Raw and green

Can someone add a section on Raw and Green peanuts? The information can be found here: Boiled_peanuts#Preparation. 2601:647:CB02:5034:ADF3:1562:4A20:14C (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for specific requests to add or change specific text in an article, not general requests for improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"Peanuts"

There is a move discussion at Talk:Peanuts#Requested move 29 September 2019 proposing that there is no primary topic for the plural which is currently about a comic strip. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

Change Reference Nr. 6 to archived version (https://web.archive.org/web/20190408185751/http://www.peanut-institute.org/peanut-facts/) Hundifan33 (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for flagging this up! – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

"are favorable to the preservation"

Please change "to" to "for" 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Already done when I got here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oil Roasting

Under the Food topic, it mentions only dry roasting of peanuts or deep frying whole peanuts. However, a very common practice is roasting in oil, which are called "cocktail peanuts" in the US. This could be mentioned, especially as the difference between dry-roasted and oil-roasted peanuts is not always clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.142.113.192 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

nut definition

So the definition quoted is "a fruit whose ovary wall becomes hard at maturity". It's not clear how this doesn't apply to peanuts. Does the shell form from some other part than the ovary wall? Is the shell hard before "maturity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.192.36.165 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This is best answered by reading the articles on Fruit and Legumes. Hint: fruit do not grow underground, and peanuts do not grow from a flower or ovary. Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Gallery is not separate page or subpage

Title is self explanatory. 173.21.19.27 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Add the semi-protected template. 41.254.65.142 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

New research found

I have found a research paper made by the University of South Australia and Texas Tech University, claiming that eating peanuts will result on weight loss in 6 months, here is the article: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2986/htm Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Most readers are not chemists

Quote: "Apart from N, P and K, other nutrient deficiencies causing significant yield losses are Ca, Fe and B." Wouldn't these be better spelled out - and better yet, linked to the relevant articles? 108.24.202.139 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you for your suggestion! Entranced98 (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Questionable content on Hover cursor over "Shell" link

Please review the following content appears to be intentionally out of line with the subject of the page. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut

Below is reference text from the relevant subsection of this article: " Parts

Peanut seed separated showing the cotyledon, plumule and radicle Parts of the peanut include:

Shell – outer covering, in contact with soil "

Below is text displayed on hovering the link for 'Shell'.

nut shells are the home of many humans they collect there food off of the meat inside them but the humans also have a desire of cannibalism which is yummy if you ever find a nut shell immediately run for cover because the people of the nut dont like visitors hope you understand why i messed with Wikipedia! 67.168.173.225 (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Margarine

Peanuts "main ingredient of margarine"? I don't think so! I can't speak for everywhere, but in the US marge is usually mostly a corn or soy oil / water emulsion, and in Europe it's a rapeseed oil / water emulsion. The claim is reffed, but the ref is old and weak. Ef80 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Composition section, production scope undefined.

Composition section says:

"Ranked second [for what?] after soya beans, peanuts are the world's largest source of vegetable oil. They are the main constituent of margarine and are "produced" [rendered? sold?] commercially as salad and cooking oil. ChgoJohn (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sales statistics are unsupported, with a link only to an article about Zimbabwe, not global, production. ChgoJohn (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

All these claims are highly dubious. I suspect peanut oil was once much more important than it is today, and that corn, rapeseed, sunflower and palm oil production have all greatly increased. I don't know where I'd buy a bottle of peanut oil today even if I wanted one. Ef80 (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)