Talk:Chestnut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chestnut blight[edit]

Does the american chestnut blight affect the horse chestnut?

Can't imagine it would, as the trees are completely unrelated. KristianMikk

Image[edit]

Found a good image for chestnuts at: http://www.pusanweb.com/food/guides/streetfood/chestnut.jpg I'm too lazy to check for copyrights and upload and all. Someone plz. do it for me. For more images see: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&q=chestnut&sa=N&tab=wi

Metric System[edit]

Why is only the Metric system used instead both English and Metrics? I have no idea as most Americans what the fuck a meter is. Someone must have gone through the entire article and removed all mention of the English system. That was a rotten thing to do. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between hazelnut and chestnut[edit]

Chestnuts
Hazelnuts

cuz i googled images and got the same results for each nut thanks!

Wikipedia has a nice article on hazel nut that has clear pictures. What's not clear from the pictures is that hazel nuts are much smaller. --71.51.64.122 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many differences. The seed are among the few things that look somewhat alike. But as entire plants they are quite dissimilar. Though they both have their male flowers in catkins for example, and in this particular case this is even a sign of their relationship (it was once believed that most all plants with catkins would belong to a group called Hamamelididae, but this is not correct).
Altogether, one might say that a chestnut and a hazelnut plant are about as closely related as a human and a capuchin monkey. They are not too far apart; as your question shows, one can recognize that. But they are not particularly close either. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



nutritional info request[edit]

Could someone edit this article with some nutritional info? As I understand it, chestnuts differ from most other nuts in having little or no fat and very little protein -- but lots of starch. I would like to see more about content analysis for chestnuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.13.20 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about them, we don't eat the Common ("Horse") Chestnut, and the Edible Maron Chestnut does not grow here. HOWEVER, the article states that chestnuts have way more starch than potatoes. While this may be technically true, it is due to the high water content of the potato. The nutritients of potato are almost completely carbohydrates, a bit of protein, it's a (fattening) carbohydrate food like rice and noodles --88.74.176.26 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which species of chestnut is the Dwarf Chestnut?[edit]

Which species of chestnut is the Dwarf Chestnut? Reading from the [Grocer's Encyclopedia] -- search for Dwarf Chestnut, it says

a low tree, bearing fruit the size of a hazel nut. A number of species are native to the East. It does not grow south of Maryland.

— Grocer's Encyclopedia 1911

Please add the historical name of Dwarf Chestnut to the article if the correct species is found.

Thanks, Onionmon 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been added (not by me) - Castanea pumila, whose scientific name indeed literally means "tiny chestnut". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinkapin redirects[edit]

Someone needs to straighten out the redirects here. Chinkapins are not chestnuts. The subject word is "chestnut", a common name, not Castanea, a genus name. Chinkapins and chestnuts both belong to Castanea, which should be the topic. "Chinkapin" and "Chestnut" should redirect to Castanea.

Partly correct, partly wrong (and fixed that). Chinkapins are a number of Fagaceae (including some Castanea), but for Castanopsis "chinkapin" is the only name that is used to any extent in English. Outside North America "chinkapin" is not used for Castanea to any extent, and scientists use it for some Castanea, all Castanopsis, and (as "golden chinkapin") for Chrysolepis with no clear pattern, says Google Scholar. So Chinkapin is now disambiguation. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chestnut & maggots[edit]

About the maggots in the chestnuts, are they 'fly' maggots? How do they get inside the chestnuts? Do the flies lay eggs outside the chestnut so the maggots will crawl into the tip of the chestnut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.66.218.156 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IONO exactly what maggots you refer to, but usually the insects (flies, midges...) lay their eggs inside the flowers and the larvae then grow together with the chestnut, getting inside before it gets the spiny husk. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castanea Latin name[edit]

Castanea is not a Latin but a Greek name.Even in modern greek we call it καστανιά(castania)...It is widely known that many latin words come from greek ones...In modern greek "Kastanos andras" means brown-haired man...kastanos means dark brown from the co;our of chestnuts(kastana) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.219.17 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we need here is a link to some dictionary that says what you say (i.e. showing that the greek version predates the latin one). Am keeping that in mind... but if you've got one it'll be done quicker. Basicdesign (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of extensive GF edits[edit]

Many apologies for reverting many recent good-faith edits. Can we take a breather and discuss several issues raised please. I think much of the material is worth including, but we need to make sure we don't lose existing material, nor introduce multiple errors and style mistakes. I'll list some of these in a minute. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi. don't want to walk onanyone's shoes. Have faithfully re-integrted everything of past article in new thing. It does not show all of it yet b/c havee not finished putting in everything, there are bits at the end. Have even added refs to what was not so referenced, and intended to go back to the previous version to check on the refs I may have emissed.
What else? Basicdesign (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, apologies for wholesale reversion. I started to do some corrections, but realised that there were very many to do, and that further edits were going on. Here are a few of the problems:
  • Scientific names are always in italics, and the second (species) name never has an initial capital.
  • Bold is only used in certain circumstances on WP, and not for emphasis (see MOS:BOLD).
  • Links should not be to dabs already linked in header.
  • We are talking of species here, not varieties.
  • In this article, English names of species are not capitalised. In any case, English names of more general types (oak, beech, chestnut) are not capitalised. Nor are
  • Names of publications are italicised.
Sorry, no time just now to go into it in more detail. Can I suggest editing one bit at a time, without changing the order, and giving time for discussion along the way? I do like the new nutrition section. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"editing one bit at a time, without changing the order, and giving time for discussion along the way" looks what I wanted to do. True I haven't thoroughly gone into that sort of details so far, I just do them as I meeet them til I've finished putting the lot. I wrote that big mass of infos, intending to then put it in bit by bit, but it didn't work out with the refs, had to have the lot in to see where the faults are. Can I please finish putting the whole in and so finish with the refs adjustments, then we can start on the less complicated bits - we could split the work, onee of start by the begining and thee other by the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicdesign (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning, I can't do much if you don't reverse the reversal... You still there? (not b***ered off, just like that, after having removed everything? b/c what you mention is petty motive quickly sorted and not worth removing good info. I can't plug on that fully til aftere the ref bit is finished...). Thanks for letting the baby out before wiping off the smears... :-) Basicdesign (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry – other things to do. I suggest either doing one section at a time, and being patient, or restore the edits and do it all in one go – then be prepared to have it heavily edited. Perhaps pay a bit more attention to detail as you go..? What I'm trying to avoid is having to plough through big edits, where unchanged and reasonably stable text is hidden amongst the new stuff. I certainly don't want to hinder the article being improved. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fuuiii, thanks, u still there :-). As I said, I don't really have the choice other than putting everything up , because of the refs. Have started going thru what you said. I often copy names directly from the sites I read them in, so some have capitals at second latin names. Have seen a couple, will probably miss some - like for thee rest. Yep, am keeping your list on desktop. But must say for now am all concentrated on the refs, that needs a lot of attention, it's a real puzzle, takes ages! Nearly there. As you may have noticed, I've got a keyboard that misses a few buttons and so doubles letters or misses some aphazardly, very pronee on doubling e's and missing 'a's, that is already a challenge...
bold: have used it to differenciate heads of paragraphs so as to not add too many sub-paragraphs. Don't mind any other way of differenciating these, just it must be seen as different paragraphs one way or another.
heavy edits: all the better. But it would be good to see any stuff removed in the discussion page, and help to find the page where it must go, coz it's all interesting. There's some info in the discussion page I hadn't seen (the dwarf chestnut, cute). Just added it too. Okay, you alright for reversing your reversal? Basicdesign (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. My bedtime anyway... Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
okay. Sweet chestnut dreams ;-))Basicdesign (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of species[edit]

"Native Americans were eating America's own species, Castanea dentata. ...etc" is a cheat on that the word 'species' looks the same in singular and plural. Hence I've added "mainly ''Castanea dentata'' and some others". Makes the sentence heavier but is more accurate. Could also say "America's own several species..." but then you lose the fact that dentata was so dominant. To choose... Basicdesign (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also "The European and west Asian Sweet Chestnuts are susceptible, but less so than the American specie" (singular specie). ...Basicdesign (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Species" is both singular and plural, like sheep and trousers. "The American species" is correct. There is no word "specie" in this sense, though it is sometimes made up in error (for the same reason you did). One day it may become a word – such things have happened before: "cherry" is a made-up word, imagined to be the singular of "cherys" (from French cerise), which was already singular; "pea" was made up from "pease", which was a mass noun (like milk or sand) so had no plural ("pease pudding" was not made from "peas" as "milk pudding" is not made from "milks") – see back-formation. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
at this stage:
"for the same reason you did": nah, I just as I said "faithfully took in what was there" when I arrived. Native tongue's French, here, so wld have hesitated between 'specie' and 'specia' and wld have settled by making the sentence plural :-) Was just about to leave you a note saying that "I probably overdid it with the capitals, but in doubt I give respect to trees and thanks for not overdoing it yourself when you de-capitalise". Got to stop for a while. Thanks (for letting me potter with it long enough for the overhaul, notably :-). Basicdesign (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I think I'll go for hazelnuts and walnuts now; and to see what mix of planting is best in various conditions. Want to check New Zealand in particular. (If you have any ideas on that, by all means please do leave them on my page, thanks). So your turn to play... Basicdesign (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-species = ?[edit]

Here in Plants for a future it says:

"The sub-species C. pumila ashei. Sudw."

I thought I had understood it as: Castanea is the genus, pumilla or sativa or ... is the species, "underneath" you get the varieties. What is that "sub-species C. pumila ashei. Sudw." doing? What in there is the sub-species: the pumila bit or the ashei bit? Basicdesign (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"sheltered from the early morning sun" + ??[edit]

Here in Plants for a future (same link as above) it says: "The young growth in spring, even on mature plants, is frost-tender and so it is best to grow the plants in a position sheltered from the early morning sun". That doesn't make obvious sense, if any at aall. It can make sense imagining that if the cell walls are frozen, better thaw the plant / animal slowly. But I wouldn't think that you get a blazing hot sun straight away in the morning after a night's frost, unless in very special circumstances which are not the point here. Nah, it just doesn't fit. And it sure wouldn't be the first cckup I find in pfaf (I like them but they ain't the foremost frontline on exactitude, must be said). So, what does that mean, "sheltered from the early morning sun"?Basicdesign (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be something to do with photoinhibition which is more of a problem when it is cold. 131.111.30.24 (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 23:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Chestnut → Castanea — This article is about the genus Castanea, some of whose members are called "chestnut", and some "chinkapin" (chinquapin). "Chestnut" is not really a correct title, as the chinkapins are not called chestnuts. I therefore propose that the article title is changed to the same as the subject: "Castanea". The current disambiguation page Castanea would be deleted, and the one (really) other meaning of "Castanea" would be dealt with by a hatnote. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If someone searched for "chestnut", where would they end up? Would you replace the Castanea disamb page, with a redirect from Chestnut to Castanea?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opposition, but it would be helpful if you could explain your reasons. The subject of the article is the genus including both chestnuts and chinkapins. Castanea is in fact the only single name by which the subject of the article is known, to lay readers and specialists alike. How do you propose to deal with the article title not covering all of its subject? (Did you mean to link to WP:NC(CN) – which does anyway allow other conventions?) Richard New Forest (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NC (flora). Multiple common names exist for the species included in the taxon. They are all members of the genus Castanea, but they are not all chestnuts. --Rkitko (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. "Chestnut" isn't a synonym for the genus Castanea. Chestnut could be a dab page, a redirect, or (preferably, IMO) an article discussing chestnut, the nut, much like hazelnut. Guettarda (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there's plenty of content here about the nut, with a little info about the genus tacked onto the top. So actually I'd say split this article into one about the genus and another about the nut. Guettarda (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your suggestion is a good one, assuming that the nut material does not apply solely to Sweet Chestnut, in which case it should be moved there. Richard New Forest (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to move to Castanea. Article content is regarding genus. --Caceo (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Most of the article is not about the genus. To satisfy taxonomical purists, the content pertaining to the genus can be split into a separate article. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look the major topic, otherwise to many article should be split before to move. --Caceo (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Bkonrad and User:Pmanderson. If, as the nominator states above, chestnut is to redirect to Castanea following a move, then why move the article away from the common name? If it's necessary to have information on the genus at an article title unpolluted with a base English name then execute a split as User:Guettarda suggests. — AjaxSmack 06:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with conditions. I was going to say move and leave the fruit and its uses at chestnut. However I thing that the better choice is to move the dab page to the main name space. I was going to say the fruit is the primary use. But after reviewing the dab page, I'd argue that clearly there can not be a primary use. The addition condition is that the fruit and its uses are significant and merits a separate article. Right now, finding this on the dab page and then in the article is near impossible. I think this position supports those in favor of the move and the objections of those who are opposed. If more needs to be split out of the genus article to leave one for the technical botanical writers then so be it, but create one or more appropriate articles for the lay readers who what everything but the botanical material. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Next suggestion...[edit]

After all that, I think we have something close to consensus on splitting the article as per User:Guettarda's suggestion. Any further comments? Should the nut remain here, or move to Chestnut (nut)? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the nut here as the dominant usage. Guettarda (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal properties[edit]

I am removing the section "medicinal properties" from the article, since it appears to me to be alternative medicine presented as if it were well-established applications.

Medicinal properties[edit]

The fruit is very nutritious, energizing, remineralizing, a tonic for muscles, nerves and venous system, anti-anemic, antiseptic and stomachic. It is recommended to convalescents.[1]

The tannin in leaves and bark makes these astringent, useful to treat bleedings, diarrhoeas etc. They are anti-inflammatory, astringent, expectorant and tonic.[2][3][4] The leaves are harvested in June or July and can be used fresh or dried.[2] An infusion has been used in the treatment of fevers and ague, but are mainly employed for their efficacy in treating convulsive coughs such as whooping cough and other irritable conditions of the respiratory system.[2][3] The leaves can also be used in the treatment of rheumatism, to ease lower back pains and to relieve stiff muscles and joints.[5] A decoction is a useful gargle for treating sore throats.[5] The bark has been used as antidiarrheic because of the tannins.[1]

The plant is used in Bach flower remedies - the keywords for prescribing it are 'Extreme mental anguish', 'Hopelessness' and 'Despair'[209].[6]

Wood extract (mixed at a 1:2 to 1:6 ratio with sugar) is used as a natural agent for the prevention and cure of diarrhoea in animals.[7]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference valnet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference botanical was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Encyclopaedia of Medicinal Plants. By R. Chiej. MacDonald 1984. ISBN 0-356-10541-5. Cited in Plants For A Future.
  4. ^ The Dictionary of Modern Herbalism. By S.Y. Mills. Cited in Plants For A Future.
  5. ^ a b The Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants. By A. Chevallier. Dorling Kindersley. London 1996. ISBN 9-780751-303148.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference pfaf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Tannin extract of Sweet Chestnut wood, a process for the preparation thereof and its use. By Roko Mirosevic. Published 01 November 1995. European Patent EP0481396.

Particular comments:

  • The first paragraph is phrased like an advertisement, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia.
  • The rest is a long "too good to be true" list of ailments that chestnuts are supposed to cure.
  • What I find disturbing is the use of phrases like "is used to..." and "can be useful", citing dictionaries and encyclopedias (which are not primary sources, just like Wikipedia isn't) and a patent application (which is no indication that it is actually being used).
  • If someone feels that this information belongs in the article, it should be written as "in alternative medicine, chestnuts are used as ...". Other claims to medical properties should be accompanied with references to scientific sources; see WP:MEDRS.

Han-Kwang (t) 10:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference list[edit]

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that reference 48 ( The American Chestnut Returns. By Fred Thys, for WBUR news. July 18, 2008.) doesn't exist on its host site. I looked up the article in Internet Wayback and updated the reference. I don't know if I need a pull date for the wayback or anything, so forgive me if I don't edit the reference correctly. NVM. I don't know how to edit references any more. Things have really changed since I last did anything. Here's the wayback link, though: http://web.archive.org/web/20080907065106/http://www.wbur.org/news/2008/78764_20080718.asp 96.248.6.39 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kestaneci chestnut vendor.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Kestaneci chestnut vendor.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • 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 Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic references[edit]

These examples are very trivial (and irrelevant) and the whole section should be deleted. Rwood128 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Chestnut. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chestnut. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chestnut. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production table[edit]

@Zefr: What does "the larger table overemphasizes a minor crop" mean? With the addition of the 2020 data Shoefly's table would be a good addition to the page. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The large table under Production in this edit not only shows a lot of low-value production numbers which are out of date by 6 years, but also occupies a substantial amount of article space for a crop which must be among the smallest in the world recorded for edible nuts (2300 tonnes in 2020, nearly all in China). The smaller table is sufficient, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Zefr (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Invasive Spices:@Zefr: Please revert the larger table deletion. The smaller FAO table you posted instead contains erroneous data. Bolivia does not grow chestnuts. They grow brazil nuts, called castaña del Brasil. Even the FAO miss classifies that. If a crop is relatively large or small should not matter for inclusion. Seeing chestnut production trends over time is encyclopedic and valuable for growers like myself. It was a lot of work to put this table together and I'd hate to see data on national production trend changes removed like that. There is an interesting story behind production increases and declines in each of these countries. Once you post, I can add the 2020 FAO data to get the table data up to date. Thanks, Shoefly (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: An alternative may be to create a new page called Chestnut production or History of chestnut production similar to Corn production in the United States or History of rice cultivation, History of cotton, or History of modern banana plantations in the Americas. There, an expanded table that shows the history of chestnut production by year and country may be more acceptable, right? Please advise. Shoefly (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be suitable and more favorable to have the large table in a new article on history of chestnut cultivation. There are plenty of sources to indicate that Bolivia grows chestnuts to about 4% of the world total, according to this source, and consistent with the FAO report in the small table. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you did really mean the larger table overemphasizes a minor crop. This is the Chestnut article. We should not remove numbers because other articles contain bigger numbers. new page If Chestnut production/History of chestnut production would be just this table then it should stay here. If there is more information to go there then that may be a good move. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Invasive Spices:Thank you for your comment. The larger chestnut production table I expanded several years ago and added updated numbers/years ever so often. @Zefr: deleted that larger table and replaced it with a smaller table that unfortunately contains production data from Bolivian brazil nuts that are also called "chestnuts" in Spanish. Upon correction, @Zefr: reverted my edits, which may be in good faith but doesn't serve the truth. The Bolivian "chestnut production data" reported by the FAO apparently doesn't even originate in Bolivia. The FAO flags that line item in their report as "FAO data based on imputation methodology". FAO imputation algorithms have been criticized for other crops and reported data in the past, especially as it relates to production data from developing countries. Looks to me that some misguided algorithm in the FAO may continue to muddle up the truth or generate a "new truth". This "new truth" or misinformation continues to be multiplied in journal articles and now Wikipedia. Hopefully, @Zefr: or a chestnut knowledgeable wikipedian sees the light and cleans up the pesky mess at least in Wikipedia. I'm done editing or trying to revert. Shoefly (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: The level of confidence you have in your references appears to come from academic studies and googling not working in the trenches. On the web, purported "facts" about "Bolivian chestnut production" are apparently lost in translation multiple times. It doesn't matter how often these "facts" get picked up by others on the web and copied in peer reviewed journals. Some English and Spanish speaking people appear to be talking about apples and oranges. Look at the pictures in this article. Does it show chestnuts (castanea)? [1] Do chestnut trees (castanea sp.) even grow in the tropical Bolivian latitudes? Brazil nut trees (Bertholletia excelsa) are not related to castanea, neither are horse chestnut (aesculus). The Wikipedia article is about castanea species not the others. Please consult with somebody who is expert in this topic before deleting good info and spreading fake info further. Wikipedia:Assume good faith Thanks. Shoefly (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not agree here. Sources are important. The picture in that article is meant to be illustrative - it is not a specimen picture in a journal article. It does not automatically indicate that they are incompetent about species. In any case that article is not used in this Wikipedia page. AGF Zefr is not being personally offensive. Certainly we cannot AsourceshaveGF. FAO is usually a good source however I do agree that if FAO is interpolating data then that is not real data. I don't know anything specific about Bolivia and Castanea however I do note that I am unable to find any sources for that except for FAO itself so that may be bad data - some of FAO's table for Bolivia says "Official data" however. I do like Freshplaza however it would be good to have official statistics. I am puzzled by your dislike for journals - we need to look at the journals' sources and if we find they are all sourced from FAO then perhaps that is suspicious. Invasive Spices (talk) 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Invasive Spices: Thank you for your comments and your willingness to look into this geeky issue on Freshplaza. As you may have noticed then, it is easier to "grow" erroneous production data in FAO, academic journals and Wikipedia than to actually grow over 80,000tons of chestnuts in Bolivia. On top of that, acceptance as fact makes it appear that Bolivians consume tons of chestnuts or somehow hide their "chestnut production" from a world market. I like academic journals with high standards for authors, high standards of peer review resulting in high reliability of data. The quality of academic output and rigor has declined though in many areas. When experienced editors like @Zefr: are apparently motivated to revert for style preference and perceived relevance, it's upsetting if the outcome stays false information. In this case, no information would be better than false information. Shoefly (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AND I have looked at FAO's data again. Bolivia does have "Official data" and so we must use that. Since we have established that Bolivia grows chestnuts we cannot assume the other data is in error. I suggest we label the "imputation methodology" data and use it. We have to stick with sources. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The FAOSTAT data for 2020 still has the flag "FAO data based on imputation methodology" in the "chestnut" production data from Bolivia. In this context, @Invasive Spices: may find actual data on chestnut import and export transactions incurring tariffs more reliable than voluntarily collected figures the FAO posts.No chestnut transactions from Bolivia are recorded here. Export and import of "Bolivian chestnuts" - aka brazil nuts - in world trade are here. Bolivia is one of the main global exporters of brazil nuts. These data are sourced from (CEPII) Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales. Shoefly (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chestnut&oldid=1194088434"