Talk:Saffron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Minor Edition Problems

Greetings Mate, first of all thanks for this wonderfull and well done article. Below you will find just nit picking on wording and editing. Since I'm not an Wikipedia editor (this is my first talk), I may be completely off base.  :)

1. On Modern Trade - "For example, they may look for threads exhibiting a vivid crimson colouring." - I think you can go wihtout the For Example here.
2. On Gradding: "These are determined by finding the spice's crocin content. This is determined by finding the saffron's spectroscopic absorbance (Aλ = − log(I / I0), with Aλ as absorbance)." - The repetition caused by 'These are determined by' and 'This is determined by' does not sound good. I would change it for something like "The saffron's spectroscopic absorbance (Aλ = − log(I / I0), with Aλ as absorbance) is used to determine the spice's crocin content."
3. On Gradding: "However, despite these attempts at quality control and standardisation, a rich history of saffron adulteration continues into the present." - You could just take that However on the start of the phras. You already used it on the second last phrase of the previous paragraph.  :) Samuel Sol 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I fixed them. Thank you. Saravask 22:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

A hidden URL http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ was just inserted into the article. The URL leads to a site that hosts advertising, is not Wikipedia-affiliated, and has nothing compelling to offer on the subject of saffron — instead, it only functions as a search engine, a function that Wikipedia already has through its search box and interwiki links. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Links to commercial sites are fine, as long as they have "meaningful" and "relevant" content about saffron that is not already in this article. Thanks. Saravask 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to be honest

If this were still on FAC, I would now be objecting for "Too Many Pictures." This is out of hand, it looks like a photo-essay. Pick and choose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Saravask 17:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's really rather depressing to have had to lose so many fantastic images. The article has lost quite a lot of beauty. But I completely understand the reason for doing so, and it does help make the article a little less crowded in some areas. I still regret the removal of a few images, though; Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected.jpg in particular (which used to be the top image of this article) deeply impressed me, and I'd expected it to appear on the main page if this article was ever nominated to appear there, but that will no longer be possible with it removed. Ah well, we do provide a link to the Commons, where they should all be available, so that'll have to do. -Silence 03:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected.jpg (which is nice) could replace Image:Crocus sativus saffron Anna Tatti stockxchng.jpg. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks beautiful. But there's been a bit of controversy over whether Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected.jpg even shows C. sativus flowers. See this comment by MPF. Saravask 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This article already has a slightly non-standard "see also" section, so maybe you could add image links to that section? They're definitely worth prominently mentioning. --Michiel Sikma 22:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Article split

Unless people object, I plan on splitting just split this article into four two pieces:

1. Saffron
2. Biology and chemistry of saffron
3. History of saffron
4. Usage of saffron

My goal is to get the main article under 40 70 kb (it was at 90–91 kb when featured). History of saffron is up for peer review here. Saravask 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A summary-style split-off of history certainly looks like a very good idea, and I have no reason to think biology and chemistry wouldn't work well too.

I can't put me finger on why, but I feel like Usage of saffron wouldn't be a good article on its own. I can't pinpoint why, though. Maybe because "usage" is a wishy-washy word. Maybe because the culinary uses and medicinal uses are (in today's world at least) entirely separate. Perhaps "Saffron in medicine" could be stand-alone, I'm not sure. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• "History" is the only one of those that really seems like a good and necessary article to me. "Usage" is a fine size, and "biology and chemistry" needs clarification and term-explanation on this article before we can even start worrying about splitting. -Silence 06:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask, if it weren't for the maximum size recommendation, would the article be split at all? (I agree that "History" is the cleanest to separate.)--Curtis Clark 07:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think that history is the most logical- and probably the only necessary daughter article.--nixie 16:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Saravask 19:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

"... I'd expected it to appear on the main page if this article was ever nominated to appear there ..."

Just for the record, I am adamantly opposed to the idea that this article should be nominated for the main page TFA. From past experience, I’ve learned that main page featuring effectively inaugurates an extended period of "special extended featured article mutilation" (a telling transmogrification of a phrase I've often heard to describe FACs). I don't want this article being swarmed by an inundation of dross, cruft, and utter crap. Yes, I am aware of WP:AGF — but that doesn’t mean that we should naively believe that all non-vandal contributors know exactly what the hell they think they are doing when they add their own "two cents" to a featured article like this.

• I've also inserted an image gallery. I imagine this is a rather harmless thing to do, but others are free to chime in. I’ve also included therein the two dubious images. Saravask 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this, but I tend to agree (and must admit that I assumed all FA would eventually appear on the front page). When Black pepper appeared, I was able to make a substantive edit, but then, I cleaned up a lot of vandalism and cruft in the ensuing weeks.--Curtis Clark 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It took weeks to clean up the cruft? Why not just revert to the pre-TFA version (immediately before it appeared as Today's featured article on the main page), then look through a before-and-after TFA diff (before and after it was on the main page) and retroactively incorporate only the useful changes? Addressing your last comment: no — given that usually seven or more articles are promoted to FA status in a given week (for example, note this week's new featured articles) and many new nominations for TFA each week (note how many were nominated just in the last week), there are many dozens of FAs that have been around for many months — or even years — without being on the main page. Saravask 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There were a lot of good edits with a few blatants and cluelesses scattered among, so it was easier to watch and revert, and there were a number of us doing that. But being on the front page attracts bad attention as well as good.--Curtis Clark 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes section

While it's good to have lots of notes, it is taking up a lot of vertical space, which looks bad to me. The references section is handled quite well I think, splitting them up into two rows, and I'd like to do the same thing to the notes, except my wiki-fu is weak, and I can't quite grok the markup. Could someone help out? Fieari 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes are dynamically generateed via m:Cite/Cite.php — there's no actual material in the "Notes" section to collimate or organize. Saravask 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

I removed:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Crocus sativus saffron pollenation Anna Tatti stockxchng.jpg
• File:Crocus sativus saffron blossoms Anna Tatti stockxchng.jpg
• 

I oppose the addition of this gallery. Wikipedia is not a collection of images without text. These don't even have captions. Add as many images in the body text as you want to illustrate your point. All the other images should be moved to wikisource, just as we move large collections of quotes to wikiquote. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I will have to agree here — the gallery is a bit out of place. They serve no useful purpose as one can see them in the wikimedia page anyway. --BorgQueen 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing (though I've seen gallery sections becoming increasingly common on Wikipedia articles recently, surprisingly). The gallery was created because there are so many fantastic and illustrative free-use images we have, but there's simply not enough room in the article to use a lot of them without causing bloat. Many of the images are even good enough to go on the top of the article (or have been on the top in the past) or on the main-page should it be featured, but that isn't possible if they're not used in the article somehow, of course. But it's true that Wikipedia is not an image gallery; that's the whole point of MediaWiki, so we should use it as such rather than setting a poor example for other articles with an abundance of images. Note that this matter has been discussed and touched on before a few times, such as in the Talk:Saffron/Archive01#Notes_section_as_a_gallery.3F discussion. -Silence 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then I'll add images (w/ captions) to the "Notes" section, as was done at Kerala#Notes. Any problems w/ this? Saravask 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tidying up the main-page box

I immediately noticed some glaring errors in Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/March_20,_2006, which will be appearing on the main page in 9 days. Most obvious is the bizarre broken sentence "Saffron, which has for decades been the world's most expensive spice by weight.", but there are also numerous subtler errors (like not italicizing saffron in "The word saffron") and poor space usage. The overall effect of this box will be too bore to tears 99% of Wikipedia's readers, who will turn off as soon as the rambling discourse of the summarized intro begins with a lengthy series of botanical definitions ("The flower's three stigmas (the distal ends of the plant's carpels) and parts of its style (a stalk connecting the stigmas to the rest of the plant) are often dried and used in cooking as a seasoning and colouring agent.", when simply "Components of the flower are often dried and used in cooking as a seasoning and colouring agent." would work just as well for the main page's purposes!), which, though completely fine and appropriate for the article itself (since it will continue to use that terminology throughout the page), is very poor choice for the Wikipedia article. Even more heinous from an aesthetic perspective is the brutal error of using the exact same image for the main-page as is used at the very top of this page, even though we have dozens of even more beautiful and illustrative images available to use instead! Tragic. Luckily, admins can help edit to fix all of these errors before the thing actually appears on the main page; if I was one, I'd do it myself rather than bitching about it. :P -Silence 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a TFA for the reasons pointed out above. Also, I don't know who nominated this or wrote the blurb (it wasn't me). Saravask 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it wasn't you, and I certainly remember your saying that it shouldn't be on the main-page, though I don't entirely understand your reasoning (since Hugo Chavez actually underwent relatively little vandalism or changing; the vast majority of the significant changes to Chavez while it was on the main page wree, in fact, made by me!, and thus were of the same style and nature as the ones that had been made over weeks past). If you feel strongly about it, you might be able to prevent its appearing on the main page by pleading to Raul or something. But that has little to do with my points above, which is that if it does appear on the main page, we should certainly remedy these glaring errors in the text that is to be featured on the mainpage!! -Silence 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

inaccurate info

hello. "Historians believe that saffron first came to China with Mongol invaders by way of Persia. Yet saffron is mentioned in ancient Chinese medical texts, including the Pun Tsao ("Great Herbal") pharmacopoeia (pp. 1552–78), a tome dating from around 1600 BC . Compiled under Emperor Shen-Ung...", this piece of info is not correct:

1. the work is generally atrributed to the descendents of Shen Nong, not compiled under his instruction
2. the work is written at its earliest 200-300 BC
   

Maybe someone would want to verify the info? Cheer.--K.C. Tang 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but most of your info (your date, your claim that he didn't write it or order it written) doesn't seem to be correct, per Hayes. I've made fixes ([1]) using Hayes' Principles and Methods of Toxicology (Google book search results). Saravask 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which the lead says most expensive for centuries, but looking at the history it seems to go back and forth and say decades without any of them noting in the edit summary. The main page blurb says decades, and I would have fixed it to centuries if I new for sure which was correct. - Taxman ^Talk 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It should only read "decades", not "centuries". Saravask 05:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An anon changed it from "decades" to "centuries" ([2]). Saravask 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

forgive my bluntness: but would you be persuaded if i show you some Chinese sources? i'm a bit frustrated...i don't know how i can persuade you since you don't read Chinese :(--K.C. Tang 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can be persuaded if you can provide a source proving that Hayes is wrong. Saravask 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i try to find some english sites which can provide the info, but the english sources seem not very reliable...here is an entry from a Chinese encyclopedia, it is rather detailed and accurate... but then you don't Chinese... do you happen to know some Chinese reader whom you trust to verify that?--K.C. Tang 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm willing to trust you on this — it seems reasonable to believe that the Chinese (and Chinese sources) will know more about their own history than what a non-Chinese guy named Hayes wrote in his book (while not even providing any notes or primary refs). Still, maybe you could at least post a brief translated excerpt here? Maybe (as you asked) someone else watching this knows Chinese? Saravask 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your trust first, you may also take a look at this site, search with key words "shennong bencaojing", and you can see a brief but rather accurate description of the work. Anyway, you've produced a great article and everyone is benefited. Cheer.:)--K.C. Tang 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

a simple way to deny Heyes' claim is to point out that the earliest record of Chinese writings are the oracle bones, which date no earlier than 1600BC. So you see it's a bit strange to say that the work was "written" by some legendary figure 2700BC. Frankly, i even doubt that if there is references to the plant in the book... the plant is called "Tibet red flower"(藏紅花) in Chinese, as the plant is believed to have first arrived Tibet from India during the Ming Dynasty...another "Great Herbal", the Compendium of Materia Medica, mentions it...is it possible that Heyes confused one work with the other?--K.C. Tang 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

wow

This article is stunningly good.--Deglr6328 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a "best among featured" category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This really does represent Wikipedia at its best. Nice work folks! — Matt Crypto 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; this article is amazing! Kudos to all those who have worked on it. -Big Smooth 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's vandalism in the first two sentences of the article ("Saffron (IPA: ['sæːfɹən]) is a piece of shit spice. It sucks almost as much as this Wikipedia site does."), but I don't seem to be able to edit it out. Maybe this is because of the way the first paragraph is protected when it's on the main page? (The main page text is fine.) Anyway, I don't seem to be nearly as competent at using the delete key as I thought, so someone else should probably take care of that.130.132.199.75 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You can refresh your browser — I think it has been taken care of. Saravask 07:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Safranbolu

Someone added info about Safranbolu's annual festival to the "Biology" section — this is bad. I moved (a reworded version of the) info to History of saffron. Otherwise, addition of more information (about things whose mention may be neglected in this article) is always welcome. Saravask 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Iodoform-like fragrance?

I'd say most people have no idea what iodoform smells like. Could someone who has actually smelled saffron make a better comparison please? —Keenan Pepper 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, iodoform smells like saffron? ☺ Seriously, I've heard it likened to cigarette butts, but I don't smell the similarity.--Curtis Clark 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A cultural difference, perhaps. In some countries, iodoform is still a common disinfectant. Having said that I agree another comparison rather than iodoform and hay would be desirable, if we can find it. --BorgQueen 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blame him — "Very intensively fragrant (reminiscent to iodoform, but much more pleasant) ..." PS: Iodoform smells like tincture of iodine, which has that strongly "medicinal" smell. And yes, I've smelled saffron — I just don't want to do original research by devising my own unsourced descriptions of saffron's aroma (it's a very hard aroma to put into words :-)). Saravask 21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Could we upload a .snf file for people to download and smell to get the full effect? We have audio files for featured articles about songs, why not olfactory files for ones where there's an important smell? :f -Silence 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I so wish that were a real format. —Keenan Pepper 22:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese saffron

I grew up in a partially Portuguese home, so I learned about assafroa early on, but only recently did I learn that "Portuguese saffron" [3] was actually safflower, not saffron. I've added this information to the page, but sadly, other than commercial links like the one I just gave (which are likely to be transient) I don't have a good reference for this naming to put in the article. I've added a note and hopefully my footnote here will suffice. If not, then I'll see what I can do about finding an offline source. -Harmil 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are free to add commercial links under "External links" as long as the information-to-advertizement ratio is very high (or, ideally, infinite) and it comes from a (at the very least) semi-respectable source. But if it has vast swathes of spam and ads, is from an untrustworthy site, or does not contain any info not already in this article, then don't add it. See Wikipedia:External links and WP:SPAM. Saravask 21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

question on labor-required

First, let me say that this is a really great FA. But I have a question about the line Some forty hours of frenetic day-and-night labour are needed to pick 150,000 flowers. I followed the refs all the way to the originating BBC article and it is clear that the woman was talking about her whole family, so it wasn't 40 person-hours. Is there any sense of how many person-hours are required? Thanks, BanyanTree 23:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the focus is on how many hours of total labor (whether all that labor be done by one person alone or the 40 hours are split up among an entire family) it takes to make one kilo of saffron. So I guess the answer is no — I haven't seen any figures on how many hours each individual person works during a season. Saravask 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting all the external links

I feel bad about letting some commercial links (no matter how informative they may be) while saying no to others — therefore, I'm thinking about just deleting the whole "External links" section. What do others think? Saravask 06:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Every article should have a good set of external links to provide a means of reading more about the subject to those who are interested. What I don't see, however, is why the external links have to be in a reference format. Wouldn't it be best if they were just links along with a description? --Michiel Sikma 09:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

HTML bug on low resolutions

There seems to be a small bug in the article that makes one part of it difficult to read on a low resolution. See here how the "see also" section looks on my computer: http://whahay.net/pubaccess/Saffron-bug.png (you might need to copypaste the link into the address bar before it will load). Maybe someone could think of a way to fix this? --Michiel Sikma 09:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal (Closed - No Merger)

Some of the information in the other two articles on saffron (History of saffron and Trade and use of saffron) duplicate and overlap with this article. In particular, the others mention aspects of history, use in cuisine and medicine, trade, and so forth. All three are excellent articles, but wouldn't it be best if they were all merged into this one? Glane23 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The way it is now is the accepted practice in Wikipedia (see, for instance, the other featured topics). The main article, Saffron, gives an overview of the subject, with short sections on history, trade, and use, while the other articles cover these topics in greater depth. The main article is kept short so as not to overwhelm the casual reader who is seeking only the basic information on saffron. Lesgles (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

Oppose for much the same reason as Lesgles - rst20xx (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Ibid. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Main articles are meant to be summaries of other topics, otherwise this article would end up cumbersome, semi-unmanageable, take to long to load on some computers, and unreadable in some browsers.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support

• Neutral

Merge proposals closed and tags removed by (User:Neelix (Talk) July 19, 2008. I can't argue, in light of the opposition comments noted above and the lack of discussion in general. Glane23 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests

It would be nice if this page could describe which parts of the plant are used. There is a sentence that seems to suggest that only the threads are used, but this is never clearly stated. - P. Matthews 206.191.0.138 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate info

Hello. "Historians believe that saffron first came to China with Mongol invaders by way of Persia. Yet saffron is mentioned in ancient Chinese medical texts, including the Pun Tsao ("Great Herbal") pharmacopoeia (pp. 1552–78), a tome dating from around 1600 BC . Compiled under Emperor Shen-Ung...", this piece of info is not correct:

1. the work is generally atrributed to the descendents of Shen Nong, not compiled under his instruction
2. the work is written at its earliest 200-300 BC
   

Maybe someone would want to verify the info? Cheer.--K.C. Tang 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but most of your info (your date, your claim that he didn't write it or order it written) doesn't seem to be correct, per Hayes. I've made fixes ([4]) using Hayes' Principles and Methods of Toxicology (Google book search results). Saravask 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which the lead says most expensive for centuries, but looking at the history it seems to go back and forth and say decades without any of them noting in the edit summary. The main page blurb says decades, and I would have fixed it to centuries if I new for sure which was correct. - Taxman ^Talk 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It should only read "decades", not "centuries". Saravask 05:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An anon changed it from "decades" to "centuries" ([5]). Saravask 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

forgive my bluntness: but would you be persuaded if i show you some Chinese sources? i'm a bit frustrated...i don't know how i can persuade you since you don't read Chinese :(--K.C. Tang 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can be persuaded if you can provide a source proving that Hayes is wrong. Saravask 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i try to find some english sites which can provide the info, but the english sources seem not very reliable...here is an entry from a Chinese encyclopedia, it is rather detailed and accurate... but then you don't Chinese... do you happen to know some Chinese reader whom you trust to verify that?--K.C. Tang 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm willing to trust you on this — it seems reasonable to believe that the Chinese (and Chinese sources) will know more about their own history than what a non-Chinese guy named Hayes wrote in his book (while not even providing any notes or primary refs). Still, maybe you could at least post a brief translated excerpt here? Maybe (as you asked) someone else watching this knows Chinese? Saravask 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your trust first, you may also take a look at this site, search with key words "shennong bencaojing", and you can see a brief but rather accurate description of the work. Anyway, you've produced a great article and everyone is benefited. Cheer.:)--K.C. Tang 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

a simple way to deny Heyes' claim is to point out that the earliest record of Chinese writings are the oracle bones, which date no earlier than 1600BC. So you see it's a bit strange to say that the work was "written" by some legendary figure 2700BC. Frankly, i even doubt that if there is references to the plant in the book... the plant is called "Tibet red flower"(藏紅花) in Chinese, as the plant is believed to have first arrived Tibet from India during the Ming Dynasty...another "Great Herbal", the Compendium of Materia Medica, mentions it...is it possible that Heyes confused one work with the other?--K.C. Tang 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

fyi, there is currently contradictory information on the safron page around origin. the first paragraph says south east asia, a little further it says crete. --JayTau 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is believed by American ‎scientist, Barteld Loufter that saffron was originally cultivated by persians in central Iran [Safron History]." -- This was added by an anonymous user, there is (or was) spelling mistakes, and the source it links to is just a secondary source that doesn't cite it's sources (unreliable). It can't be reverted back because this guy done this in about 6 edits (correcting spelling mistakes, purposeful to avoid the 3RR?). Anyway, I'm just going to delete that line unless anyone sees a reason not to (this is a featured article after all, and the source is too unreliable to be messing this article up). --Mark PEA 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref style - mixing Harvard and Chicago

I think it only fair to note that I've started a debate about the (rather odd) mixed referencing style in Saffron (among other articles) here. Mikker ^(...) 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Poison & Cornish Connection

It is my understanding that saffron is poisonous, despite its use in foodstuffs. There is a Cornish delicacy known as Saffron Cake (see here for recipe) or Saffron bun, while this link comments that 10gm of saffron could prove fatal. As far as I am aware commercial bakers of saffron cake are required to hold a special license for the ingredient.

Although the Cornish connection may only warrant a mention, I think the article should note that saffron is toxic (just in case someone gets the urge to spend a stupid amount of money on some, and then swallow the lot!) LessHeard vanU 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ps. Nice article.

This is just all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kesar

Hi. It's a beautiful article. Can the editors please include that Saffron is also called Kesar in India. Kesar (केसर) is a Hindi word derived from Sanskrit word Kesaravar (केसरवर). Citations are here and here. I would have done it myself but don't want to ruin the flow and style of this good article. It would be great if you could also set a re-direction of Kesar to this article. Please let me know of any questions/comments. Thanks for including the suggestion. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I had to add it myself. Very slow/minimal response for editors of a featured article. Please edit for style to match with the general flow of the article, if needed. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Kesar created and re-directed to Saffron. --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your addition, because it belongs in Wiktionary, not this article. There are 6,000 other languages not mentioned here, and we only need to include languages that directly relate to etymology of the English term "saffron". Thanks. Saravask 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I came here to try to gauge the article for an assessment for the Food and Drinks project, but when I read the article, I flinched. The readability is severely tainted by the overly detailed method of citation. Is there any particular reason for providing almost pedantic citations of a multitude of obviously uncontroversial facts found in the article? Who in their right mind would demand a citation for, say, the scientific name of the saffron crocus or that saffron is often adulterated?

Surely the massive list of references is not actually necessary to reference a fairly general article... How many general books on saffron and spices is actually necessary? Could at least some of them be moved to a further reading list? And why all the footnotes in the lead (two of them repeated twice)? It's supposed to be an overview of the rest of the article, meaning that it's already indirectly referenced.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

People aren't forced to read the citations, they are just small numbers that occur after a fact and are useful for people who want evidence (not hear-say) quickly without having to waste time doing their own research (which is what an encyclopaedia should be for). --Mark PEA 15:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're saying that in order to not waste the time of those who want to research, you're providing them with detailed research directions? What's the point if they're not going to do the research anyway? Trust me, those notes aren't "just small numbers" and everything that doesn't have a footnote attached to it isn't a rumor. I for one like to believe that footnotes should be taken seriously and be applied when they're actually required, not just because someone who said "well I didn't know this" wanted one. When they're applied to statements that are utterly indisputable (except through bad faith or ignorance), they kinda stop being meaningful.

And I'm still eager to hear if you're going to address my concerns about the tedious footnoting of the lead and the huge reading list (so much for saving time).

Peter ^Isotalo 16:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If we were talking about anything other than the wiki, I'd agree with you. It does suck to read text that has dinky numbers after every clause. I'd rather have a well-read expert write uncluttered text, with a few respected general refs at the bottom of the article. People would trust the author to know what he/she is talking about, and that's that. But right now, I don't have much time to redo the article; also, I'm afraid that if they were removed, CVU patrollers would not know when to revert sneaky vandalism (they could not quickly check up on whether changes were correct). If you want to remove excess cites (and can guarantee that the article will stay factually correct), then go ahead. Saravask 08:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I got a hold of Dangerous Tastes, and I was thinking about getting more literature to start improving spices, so maybe I can help out. If I do remove anything, I'll try to replace it with more general notes and make sure to make detailed edit summaries as well as provide comments on the talkpage about it.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll admit that articles like saffron don't require lots of citations, but if I had to do my own research for every article I read on wikipedia, I'd probably have doubled in age by now. Maybe it's just my scientific & skeptic way of life, but I like to see the research behind everything and the more citations the better IMO (plus I don't find it annoying with the numbers after the facts, but that's just visual preference). --Mark PEA 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can use the ref style used by Short-beaked Echidna--have separate lists for specific cites and another for general refs. Meanwhile, we might use {{inote}} to hide cites for the more uncontroversial facts; then, curious editors like Mark would still be able to check up on all the supporting research by going into "edit" mode. We could do these while also following PI's suggestions of thinning out the current list of refs and removing the more pedantic referencing. Would that work? Saravask 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you use just two pages from Dalby's Dangerous Tastes and one use of the source occurs after a statement that already has two other separate footnotes. The second note is used to source the statement that saffron has been used as a dye and a perfume in China and India, which doesn't strike me as being particularly controversial or even counterintuitive. I leafed through the book last week and noticed it had appeared to have very little information specific to saffron. Can it be excluded from the sources to get the reference list down to manageable size?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the book from the ref list and its redundant notes from the text, but left the ref as an {{inote}} to source Wan Zhen's statement, since that's pretty specific. Saravask 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seasonal references need work

In autumn, purple buds appear. Only in October ... does it develop its brilliantly hued flowers ...

This is misleading. October is a spring month in the Southern Hemisphere. A clearer reference, such as "mid-autumn" is better. B.d.mills 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The southern hemisphere is not part of this particular picture, not to dismiss its importance. There is no authentic confusion in the word "October".--Wetman 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-sequitur

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

Lethal dose?

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

LD50 is 20.7 g/kg, according to http://www.saffron.biz/saffron.php .--Curtis Clark 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What does 20.7 g/kg mean for a human being? That if someone weighs 70 kg, they'd have to ingest 1449 g (1.45 kg) of saffron in order for it to be a lethal dose? Badagnani 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For more information on the interpretation of "LD50", read LD50. 1449 g is the correct outcome of your calculation. For comparison, I read somewhere that the LD50 for edible salt is 4 g/kg. Considering that saffron is of vegetable origin and allowed in food, and considering that salt can upset your 'mineral balance', these values seem plausible. However, before you start eating stuff based on this type of information, always consider the possibility that someone lost the "μ" in μg/kg (microgram/kilogram). In that case, your calculation would be wrong by a factor 1,000,000. It must also be noted that one type of organism may be more vulnerable than another. LD50-values are usually given for species as mice or rats. Humans could less or more susceptible to toxic effects. The LD50 value for rats is only an indication of the toxicity for humans. (Ethical objections and practical problems prevent lethality testing on humans). Johan Lont 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemical inputs

Whoever wrote this article clearly knows his/her subject quite well. But the subject of chemical inputs (i.e. use of synthetic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc.) is not mentioned. Since very little saffron is marketed as organically grown, a section about this should be added to the article. Badagnani 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) first please not that saffron is not lethal can you imagine the price of 1000 gms of saffron . everybody use only 1 gm in a month for 3 persons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.55.97 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin - contradiction

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

• Saffron (...) is native to Southwest Asia. It was first cultivated in the vicinity of Greece.
• The domesticated saffron crocus C. sativus is an autumn-flowering perennial plant unknown in the wild, and is a sterile triploid mutant of the eastern Mediterranean autumn-flowering Crocus cartwrightianus. According to botanical research, C. cartwrightianus originated in Crete, not—as was once generally believed—in Central Asia.

References:

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

Justa point

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

Etymology

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

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

Where did "a mere 1500 years old" come from? That applies to Qur'anic/Classical Arabic Arabic, and not to pre-Classical Arabic, which is centuries older (emerged by the 2nd century BC). To say that one is Arabic and the other is not is like claiming that Vedic Sanskrit is not Sanskrit. You may also read the disclaimers at List of Arabic loanwords in English. Saravask 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was using dates that refer to the earliest cultural peak of the respective languages. if you want to refer to the earliest documented existence of the language, as you apparently are with that date for Arabic, then Latin still counts as an older language by a few centuries. Rhialto 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that a given language "X" cannot accept loanwords from a language "Y" if "Y" is newer than (or the same age as) "X"? What prevents Latin from adopting the term, say, 1345 years ago (long after both languages' classical forms had emerged)? Saravask 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Faulty illustration

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

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

Recent changes

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

• The information is already in the article later on (it is a copy and paste of the later info)
• The information doesn't really belong in the introduction
• the way it has been added messes up the formatting of the whole article

Loggie (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

"turkish safron"

this was bought at a bazaar in alanya, turkey as "turkish safron". Is this dried safflower?? It doesn't look at all like the safran threads in the article, which were sold as "persian safron". Thank you. -- ExpImp^talkcon 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The same stuff - dried safflower - is also sold in Egyptian bazaars as "Egyptian Saffron", alongside turmeric, which is merely labelled "saffron". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.221.168 (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Research reference / Medical benefits of saffron

As per this research, Saffron has many more medical properties than what we have probably listed. Ideally there should be another section on the medical properties of saffron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arhant (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

References

World saffron cultivation patterns image

I note that Tasmania is coloured light pink for "Minor producing nation" - since Tasmania is part of the nation of Australia, should not the entirety of Australia be in the same colour, even if only the island of Tasmania grows it? Octopug (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Saffron etymology

Hello, the last paragraph in the introduction says:

Saffron is known as "Kasubha" in Tagalog, the Filipino language, "Kesar" in Hindi/Sanskrit, and "Kong" in Urdu.

Is this sentence really necessary? While this sentence is interesting and informative in a Trivial Pursuit kind of way, it doesn't tell you anything about the origins of the English language word. I think the sentence should be removed. LovesMacs (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Saravask (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Saffron From Spain

What percent of the world's saffron comes from Spain?--Foljiny (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency

this sentence makes no sense, is it a comparison of price or weight? "Saffron prices at wholesale and retail rates range from US$500 to US$5,000 per pound (US$1,100–11,000/kg)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.151.66 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sanskrit

Ancient Sanskrit texts indicate Saffron is indigenous to the Valley of Kashmir in Pampore region. No Persian invasion of Kashmir ever occurred, these are planted stories by some elements to obtain political mileage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 February 2010

I've reverted your edit, because I was unable to verify the information. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry - error in the structure?

I think there is an error in the numbers of the atoms of the safranal group in the image showing the chemical structure of picrocrocin. In my opinion, according to the IUPAC name, number 1 should be exchanged with number 5 and number 2 with number 4. 92.107.81.152 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd pronunciation

The pronunciation of 'saffron' provided, with a full second vowel rather than a schwa, is not standard in either British (RP) or American English. It seems to be widespread in 'Estuary English' type dialects. It's the spelling pronunciation so it may ultimately prevail but at present I'm guessing it sounds odd to most ears. Bacuru (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)bacuru

Citation for the height of saffron

The link to the citation for this is broken. Can we fix this or find another reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlevine (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban on export from India

There is a line saying that the export of saffron from India is banned. This is unsourced, but I thought that possibly some restriction was in place so I put a "dubious" tag on it. Anyone know anything about this? Blue Rasberry 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Medical

I have removed this from the intro:

"Saffron has further medicinal applications."

There is no reference, and this does not seem to fit with the preceeding paragraph.

If it does have direct medical benifits and it can be sourced (other than just speculation on herbalist sites) then it should be explained in the body. 90.219.4.114 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary "units"

Why is "football fields" used as a unit of area in the "Trade and use" section? Please convert it to hectares and acres as soon as possible. Different varieties of football use fields of different sizes and often the size is in any case not exactly specified. Such informal, arbitrary, made-up "units" are completely unacceptable in the context of this and similar articles. Roger (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Harvesting Saffron

Quoting article:

"(It requires)... (110,000-170,000 flowers or two football fields for a kilogram). Forty hours of labour are needed to pick 150,000 flowers."

That works out to about one flower per second. Are they hand-picked or is some "machinery" used?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager they're hand picked, just like weeds on an organic farm, you'd be amazed at how quick those guys can go. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant article here. Maybe it could be worked in as a source. Rivertorch (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good find. A quick search returned pictures of people bending over in fields to pick the flowers, which seems quite primitive when they could just use one of these implements and have it done much quicker. I wonder if the pictures are publicity shots to show a "traditional face" or if the use of tractors is undesirable for some reason; the fields look like they are cultivated with tractors, as seen here. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Some crops that are planted mechanically need to be harvested by hand. I don't know for sure, but I would think that if mechanical harvesting were employed, it would be very difficult to capture the saffron without a lot of detritus from the tepals and stems contaminating the mix. After all, whatever happens in the field, the stigmas still have to be removed later by hand. Crocuses being such low-growing flowers would make it even more difficult, I'd guess. Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Saffron has long been an important colouring agent for textiles. The main purpose of its growth in England was to dye wool. The colouring is closely associated with the robes of Buddhist monks.

But the introduction of this article ignores these traditions and sums them all up in two words: "...........and textiles".

More needs to be said on this topic, starting with the introduction. The very first line ought to read: "Saffron is a spice and a colouring agent......."

The fact that there is no picture of a dyed textile is slack. There ought to be a pic of a Buddhist monk, since the colour has such a strong association with their robes.

I'm not happy about the illuminated manuscript. There are two yellow/orange colours, but the one that appears in the greatest amount in that picture (the paler, less orange colour) is probably not saffron. There is probably a better example than that.

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

From Help:Searching/feedback

Just a note for anyone watching this page: someone has suggested that this article should mention "Analysis of Saffron (Crocus sativus L. Stigma) Components by LC–MS–MS Ranjit Singh Verma, Deepak Middha Journal: Chromatographia - CHROMATOGRAPHIA , vol. 71, no. 1-2, pp. 117-123, 2010 DOI: 10.1365/s10337-009-1398-z" -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS

This article has statements about medicinal uses of saffron, which should be sourced according to WP:MEDRS (meaning recent, secondary journal reviews rather than primary sources or non-medical reviews). I didn't see any text of concern (I believe most of the claims can be sourced), but I don't have journal access to the full-text of most of the secondary reviews that are PubMEd-indexed, and I don't speak the citation method used here. I believe the commented out section on research should be eliminated, since it uses primary sources that aren't necessary and seems to be leading to those obnoxious red error messages in the citations; secondary reviews are available that can be used to replace primary sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews in PubMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Small caps in citations

Is there any good reason why, contrary to MOS:SMALLCAPS and general practice, authors' names in the citations are in small caps? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations

This article is in bad need of further in-line citations. I haven't looked at the article further, but I might bring an FAR up for it at some point. Tezero (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article seems exemplary to me, but I agree there's a problem with the recently added section "Grades and ISO 3632 categories". Maybe just flag that section as needing more inline citations? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FAR notice

This article has a lot of uncited text; can those be provided to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR needed

I am un-archiving the FAR needed messages, and increasing the archive time limit. This article still needs a Featured article review; there is considerable uncited text, medical claims need to be sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources, and there are missing "as of" dates on data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS

This article has statements about medicinal uses of saffron, which should be sourced according to WP:MEDRS (meaning recent, secondary journal reviews rather than primary sources or non-medical reviews). I didn't see any text of concern (I believe most of the claims can be sourced), but I don't have journal access to the full-text of most of the secondary reviews that are PubMEd-indexed, and I don't speak the citation method used here. I believe the commented out section on research should be eliminated, since it uses primary sources that aren't necessary and seems to be leading to those obnoxious red error messages in the citations; secondary reviews are available that can be used to replace primary sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews in PubMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Small caps in citations

Is there any good reason why, contrary to MOS:SMALLCAPS and general practice, authors' names in the citations are in small caps? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations

This article is in bad need of further in-line citations. I haven't looked at the article further, but I might bring an FAR up for it at some point. Tezero (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article seems exemplary to me, but I agree there's a problem with the recently added section "Grades and ISO 3632 categories". Maybe just flag that section as needing more inline citations? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FAR notice

This article has a lot of uncited text; can those be provided to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Earliest cultivation

The notion that it was first cultivated in Greece (Crete to be specific) is somewhat sketchy. The city of Azupiranu, from which Sargon of Akkad (2334 BC – 2279 BC) was said to have come, means "city of saffron". The source is also not exactly top quality. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Saffron (use) be merged into Saffron. The former was created by an account that is now blocked for sockpuppetry, and may contain useful information. However I thin it's unusual to split articles in this way. Sammy1339 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Saffron (trade) has a similar situation, as I just noticed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also Trade and use of saffron. Something very odd has been going on... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes just do it; no need for a big discussion as I cannot imagine anyone will object. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Saffron grown in Cheshire UK

I have looked for reliable sources for this and have not found any. User:Pdgould what reliable sources describe this? Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am the grower so I should know this. Webpage www.cheshiresaffron.co.uk so look it up. I am annoyed that you kept changing my edits without even looking it up on web first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdgould (talk • contribs) 10:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not only is the Cheshire information minor in relative production importance, WP:FRINGE, but the cheshiresaffron site is a commercial blog, so not useable as a Wikipedia reference per WP:PROMO, WP:NOTBLOG and WP:SECONDARY. Please familiarize yourself with these guidelines. --Zefr (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Pdgould. Please understand that someone coming to WP and saying "this is true because I say so" does not fly here in WP (please think about how much crazier this place would be, if it were OK!). One of the policies the community put in place along time ago, is that everything in WP needs to be supported (and based on) a "reliable source". What is a "reliable source"? That is defined here: WP:RS. One of the things we look for is independent sources - the website of someone selling X is not independent of X. If there is coverage of saffron in Cheshire in a major newspaper or say UK government agency website, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There's also the issue of WP:UNDUE. There are other people in the UK who grow saffron (there's an article in the current RHS magazine about another grower, for example). It would be wrong to pick out just one grower/area. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search

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) 17:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Article bloat

If Crocus sativus is the main article for "Species" information, why does Saffron have 7-times the "Description" ("Morphology") and 3-times the "Cultivation". I would move a lot of the "Species" content to Crocus sativus but it might appear to be vandalism to some. I feel it is important to separate the "plant" from the "spice" to keep the content concise. For example, the nutritional values in the infobox are for the spice, saffron, not the plant, Crocus sativus, which can be consumed in small amounts (I removed the binomial name from the title). The article is very good and I do not want it to suffer the bloat others have, e.g. Black pepper.User-duck (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@User-duck: yes, you're absolutely right in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am preparing to move information to Crocus sativus. I have tidied several references and consolidated information into the appropriate sections.User-duck (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Source quality for supposed pharmacological effects

This sentence below is removed due to its weak, low impact sources, supposition of "biological effects", and date and origin of research (#1 from 2007, i.e., outdated and unconfirmed; #2,3 from Iran) where traditional practices and in vitro research are accepted as proof of in vivo action. Certainly not the case; there are no high-quality publications supporting these statements. This is not even acceptable-quality preliminary in vitro evidence, let alone "biological effects". --Zefr (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Constituents of saffron have been found to act as NMDA receptor antagonists, monoamine reuptake inhibitors, and sigma receptor ligands in vitro.

References

Support removal. For one thing, we need to remember our audience, who may not read every sentence carefully, following every link and checking every source. It's a quasi-medical claim, so I really think we should err on the side of caution and MEDRS should apply. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal; the sources are not suitable for the claim. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed 3 Categories that were added with biological section (now removed)User-duck (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Safran-Weinviertel Niederreiter 2 Gramm 8285.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Safran-Weinviertel Niederreiter 2 Gramm 8285.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 12, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Saffron is a spice derived from the flower of Crocus sativus, commonly known as the "saffron crocus". The vivid crimson stigmas and styles, called threads, are collected and dried to be used mainly as a seasoning and colouring agent in food. Saffron, long among the world's most costly spices by weight, was probably first cultivated in or near Greece. Today Iran accounts for approximately 90% of global production.Photograph: Hubertl

File:Safran - Saffron bulbs.JPG

In what sense does this image "not work" with the "upright" parameter? I'm not seeing it. --John (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems fine to me when formatted 'upright' as is standard. Perhaps someone has set their default image size (Preferences/Appearance/Files/Thumbnail size) rather too small. At 180px (high in this case), it's just fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

For me, on Firefox, when "upright" was added the image turned 90 degrees counterclockwise and had its proportions warped to fit the frame: the image was distorted and the text in the picture was turned sideways. Nitpicking polish (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Remarkable! I've used Firefox for Wiki-editing for many years now, and never saw such a thing, whether on this image (I just tried) or anything else. Something wrong with the device you used, maybe? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a new effect for me too. It's clear if I compare version 805017592 (with "upright") to version 805018749 (without), and I see the effect in Chrome as well. (Both browsers are Windows desktop versions.) Clearly I'm not the only person to see it, because another editor introduced the "Image does not work with 'upright'" comment, but I don't know what's causing it. Nitpicking polish (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Typical Serving Size?

The nutrition section lists 1 tablespoon as a typical serving size. This seems ludicrously high - a typical saffron rice recipe calls for 1/8 teaspoon or a pinch for 6 servings.

I removed the word 'typical'. The amounts offered by a reliable source, such as the USDA, are meant to allow comparisons of nutrient contents among many different spices and/or foods. This is the USDA nutrient table for saffron showing 100 g, one teaspoon (0.7 g), and one tablespoon (2 g) amounts for different nutrients. --Zefr (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What is your problem with "BCE"?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era: "For decades, it has been the global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union." Read the entire article, if you haven't already. You reversion of my edit is nothing less than Christian Sharia. I want you to justify it. Autodidact1 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about this edit, the justification was right there in the comment: the guidelines at MOS:BCE. Nitpicking polish (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929225731/http://vitasta.org/1999/index.html to http://vitasta.org/1999/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041110054340/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=318 to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=318

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) 16:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible etymology

I would like to propose a possible etymology of "saffron" from Median farnah-, Avestan xᵛarənah-, Sanskrit suvarṇa (सुवर्ण), all with the meaning of yellow, golden, yellow ochre, turmeric and, through a small semantic shift, glory, aura, fortune. 84.18.132.44 (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "propose a possible etymology"? Wikipedia expressly forbids original research. We can mention those etymological theories that have received significant attention in reliable sources. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I know, but I'm not an academic and I don't have the possibility to publish articles. Maybe you can leave my suggestion on this Talk page, so that an academic may take the time to confirm or disprove my hypothesis. Regards. 84.18.132.44 (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, your suggestion will stay here until the thread is archived. Anyone, academic or otherwise, will need to demonstrate that the hypothesis has received significant attention in reliable sources before adding it to the article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)