Talk:Apple/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

opppppppppppppp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.44.104 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

History

There is a contention that the domestication of apples -- not just dwarf apples -- took place in Kazakhstan: http://steppemagazine.com/articles/sweet-pilgrimage-two-british-apple-growers-in-the-tian-shan/ , with reference to "Nikolai Vavilov (1887–1943)[, who] had traced the whole process of apple domestication to Almaty." Kdammers (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad references

I just reviewed some references. I started with short, unlinked references which may be difficult to verify. Found several (too many based on the number reviewed) references unrelated to statements. Looks like contributor(s) are adding statements and randomly assigning existing references to them. <ref name=food/> is an example that I have not removed. The reference would be quite good for some info BUT not the statements currently referenced.User-duck (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?

This article contains long sections of unreferenced claims. The alleged blossoming times (in May!) for example make no sense, except perhaps for some northerly locations like Scotland or Scandinavia? Clearly the registered editors are not coping. Please release this article from its editorial prison and allow it to thrive. 81.131.172.83 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, by all means get an account and help to improve the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Johnny Appleseed/John Chapman distributing apples across N. America?

Why is there no mention of Johnny Appleseed/John Chapman distributing apples across N. America? 74.66.250.74 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There’s a decent article on Johnny Appleseed, so I’ve added a link in the See also section

Gravuritas (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Malus domestica or Malus pumila?

I think there's a problem with using the Latin binomial 'Malus pumila' without mentioning the far commoner form, 'Malus domestica'. As a rough guide I checked Google search hits for "Malus pumila" (199,000 hits) and "Malus domestica" (1,010,000 hits) ie, "Malus domestica" is used more than five times as often.

Strictly speaking the full botanical name "Malus x domestica Borkh" implies the cultivated apple is a hybrid between two or more wild species. But the form "Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh." is accepted by 'Plants of the World Online' http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:726282-1 and "Malus pumila" is given as a synonym http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:726372-1.

In the event there is no discussion about this on the talk page, I will go ahead and make the change. Chris Jefferies (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

In the section History, The wording "Apples were brought to North America" should be replaced by, "Apples were taken to North America", or even "Apples were introduced into North America", as it is very US-centric in it's present form. 93.155.220.100 (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

please show us reliable sources about this.--AlfaRocket (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a source is required, the fact that apples originated in northern Europe and Asia is not being debated. It's much more a matter of how best to express their introduction to other parts of the world. Apples are not native in South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Australia and no doubt other producing nations as well. I suggest something like, "Apples were introduced from northern Europe and Asia to most temperate zone nations". Chris Jefferies (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to correct myself - it seems the apple originated in Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Xinjiang province, China. Europe should be excluded. Chris Jefferies (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Apple wood

This article is missing the uses of the wood and wood charcoal. It's an aromatic hardwood that is used in lumber building, and in barbequing. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add content to the article supported with a WP:RS source. --Zefr (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is edit-locked (see the lock icon?), so you'd be the one to write it -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Post what you have in mind here, with source(s), so it can be reviewed and revised, then added. --Zefr (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Apple (symbolism) page is both in need of a lot of attention and largely contains redundant information found in this article. I suggest that it be pruned down and merged with this page. Could not add merger template {{mergefrom|Apple (Symbolism)|discuss=Talk:Apple#Merger proposal}} as article is semi-protected. 47.156.144.157 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Jonesey95, you should removed the notification which says "it is proposed that apple symbolism should be merged on Apple, since its done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.51.147 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018

Mubarak Khatib (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Johnny Appleseed

If Johnny Appleseed played a true role in bringing apples to America, it would be interesting to see his work included in this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameschem (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Varieties of apple

Should this article point out that more than one variety of apple can grow on the same apple tree? Vorbee (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Requires a WP:SCIRS source, if indeed true (doubtful). --Zefr (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is both true and relatively common. Nurserymen graft typically three four or five varieties onto a single dwarfing or semi-dwarfing stock to make trees suitable for small gardens. See here. Whether it is possible to find a less commercial source I am unsure.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it encyclopedic and notable (WP:WEIGHT) if done by breeding to create something so unexpected? I assumed what is both common cultivation and wild in challenging the point. --Zefr (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Proverbs Section --Also, Why is this Article Still Protected?

Under Proverbs it currently says:

The proverb "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", addressing the health effects of the fruit, has been traced to 19th-century Wales.[79] The original phrase was "Eat an apple on going to bed, and you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread",[79] with later variants including In the 19th century and early 20th, the phrase evolved to "an apple a day, no doctor to pay" and "an apple a day sends the doctor away"; the phrasing now commonly used was first recorded in 1922.

The bolded part needs to be deleted, and a period added. As it is, it doesn't make sense and was added in June 2019.

Also, there doesn't seem to have been any real issues with vandalism in the past 10 + years. Is there a reason to still have this page protected? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the phrase you have highlighted, and have revised the paragraph.

Regarding protection, please see WP:RFUP. It appears that the current protection was applied in 2011 by User:Dana boomer.[1] Dana has been inactive for some years, so posting a request at WP:RFUP appears to be the way to make progress with this. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Proverbs vs. Adage

Ok, thanks for the advice on how to request for unprotection, I appreciate it.

Also, I have a question why Proverbs was changed to Adage. I personally don't understand the difference between the two terms and the wikipedia page for adage is in poor condition compared to proverbs. I suggest changing it back. List of english proverbs 24.217.247.41 (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The proverb article lede states a proverb is a "truth based on common sense or experience". There is no science-based evidence to support that definition, and "proverb" may be misinterpreted by users as something biblical. The adage leading to "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" is the correct definition: a "concise, memorable, and usually philosophical aphorism... handed down from generation to generation." --Zefr (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zefr, I see you are the user who intially made this change from proverbs to adage immediately after I posted on the talk page here about the section on 21 August 2019, but didn't actually make the correction I suggested...

But, back to the point, you left out the part where adage is described as "a concise, memorable, and usually philosophical aphorism that communicates an important truth derived from experience, custom, or both" which makes it significantly similar to the proverb definition you stated: "truth based on common sense or experience". Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by saying There is no science-based evidence to support that definition [of proverb]. Are you trying to say that there is science-based evidence to support the definition of adage, since they are practically the same? There are a lot of examples on proverbs that are not based on the bible, so I don't think anyone would be confused and think that this saying originated from the bible.

Finally, the phrase "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" is literally listed as an example on the Proverbs page, whereas it is not listed as an example on adage and the phrase is described as a proverb on its own wiki page An apple a day keeps the doctor away. If the adage wikipedia article were in better shape (currently it has 1 section and 2 references vs. the 9 sections and 330 references for proverbs), I wouldn't be so against switching the section, but since the adage article is currently flagged as WP:OR and it is described as a proverb all over wikipedia, I think proverbs is the more appropriate wiki link. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are sources that treat "proverb" and "adage" as synonyms, but my personal usage corresponds more to this distinction. A proverb is a more indirect way of expressing a point, so needs some experience and knowledge to decode (e.g. "Never look a gift horse in the mouth") whereas an adage is a more obvious statement (e.g. "Manners maketh man", an adage I had to write out repeatedly as a school punishment in my youth). On this basis, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" is an adage, not a proverb. "If you would live healthy, be old early" is an example of a health-related proverb. It doesn't directly say what to do, you have to work out what "be old early" is supposed to mean. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I interpreted the passage, "an apple a day..." as having no scientific evidence (based on low nutrient content and absence of clinical reviews), and the description "proverb" being stricter about what is truth than an adage. Debating between the two makes me "be old early", so I'll kindly retreat from further discussion. --Zefr (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

___________|

|

1. All over wikipedia it is listed as an example of a proverb. Its own entry lists it as a proverb, why would we contradict that?
2. It was described as proverb in the earliest known example of the saying's use in print: The February 1866 edition of Notes and Queries magazine includes this: "A Pembrokeshire proverb. Eat an apple on going to bed, And you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread." [2][3]
3. Wikipedia discourages original research. You need a RS referring to the saying an "adage", not your own "personal usage" or "interpretation".
4. yourdictionary.com does not seem like a reliable source. Another similarly credible site contradicts that one's list of examples: yourdictionary lists "a rolling stone gathers no moss" as an adage, pediaa lists it as a proverb. [4]
5. Re scientific merits of the claim, may I suggest: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/An_apple_a_day_keeps_the_doctor_away#scientific_evaluation A 2013 study found that consumption of apples and pears may prevent strokes.[5] A 2013 study "A statin a day keeps the doctor away: comparative proverb assessment modelling study" found that apple consumption significantly lowered bad cholesterol levels in middle-aged adults.[6]. A 2015 study found no association between apple consumption and decreased physician visits, but did find apple eaters tended to have fewer prescriptions. [7] Lastly, here's a 2004 lit review on the health benefits of apples in epidemiological and laboratory studies. [8]

24.217.247.41 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that although some sources do make a distinction between "adage" and "proverb", it's not a consistent distinction, so it doesn't matter which term is used.

As for scientific studies, please see WP:MEDRS for what is accepted here as a reliable source for medical information. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree the distinction is difficult, so why don't we remain consistent with what the sources use (proverb). Was there an issue with the sources I listed? They are literally the ones that I found already listed on that wikipedia page. Also, I even added a 2004 literature review I found when searching for "apple a day" on google scholar.24.217.247.41 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've looked into the source and it discusses why it is there defined as a proverb. Since this is the source we use, it's logical we also call it a "proverb", unless another source is provided. For the scientific "truth" behind, I think this is not the place to dwelve into that. Have a nice day :-) --Signimu (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

Revert u/zefr's changes from proverb to adage, given he provided no WP:RS that referred to the saying as an adage, whereas I provided multiple RS that referred to it as a welsh proverb and that is how it is accurately described. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Philroc (c) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bejesus, you wiki editors like to make simple things extraordinarily difficult. Revert this edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Apple&diff=911906746&oldid=911028041 Specifically, "Change "==Adage==" to "==Proverbs==" and change adage to proverb.

Reliable Sources:

• Phillips, J. P. (1866). "A Pembrokeshire proverb". Notes Queries. 127 (s3-IX): 153.
• Hazlitt, W. C. (1907). English proverbs and proverbial phrases. London, Reeves, and Turner. p. 136.
• "The Pomological Show: Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register". George Bayley. 26 November 1887. p. 5. Retrieved 2019-01-11.
• "The Country Gentleman". Vol. LXXVIII no. 50. 13 December 1913. pp. Cover, 7, 37. Retrieved 26 December 2017.
• "An Apple a Day: Old-Fashioned Proverbs and Why They Still Work", by Caroline Taggart; published 2009 by Michael O'Mara Books
• Ely, Margaret (24 September 2013). "History behind 'An apple a day'". Washington Post. Retrieved 5 December 2015.

24.217.247.41 (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019

Per above discussion, revert this unsourced edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Apple&diff=911906746&oldid=911028041 and http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Apple&diff=920005348&oldid=919990452. User provided no RS for change.

Specifically, "Change the heading "==Adage==" to "==Proverbs==" and change adage to proverb.

Reliable Sources:

• Phillips, J. P. (1866). "A Pembrokeshire proverb". Notes Queries. 127 (s3-IX): 153.
• Hazlitt, W. C. (1907). English proverbs and proverbial phrases. London, Reeves, and Turner. p. 136.
• "The Pomological Show: Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register". George Bayley. 26 November 1887. p. 5. Retrieved 2019-01-11. https://hdl.handle.net/10107/4592708
• "The Country Gentleman". Vol. LXXVIII no. 50. 13 December 1913. pp. Cover, 7, 37. Retrieved 26 December 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=kcdFAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22an%20apple%20a%20day%20keeps%22&pg=RA4-PA43#v=onepage&q=%22an%20apple%20a%20day%20keeps%22&f=false
• "An Apple a Day: Old-Fashioned Proverbs and Why They Still Work", by Caroline Taggart; published 2009 by Michael O'Mara Books
• Ely, Margaret (24 September 2013). "History behind 'An apple a day'". Washington Post. Retrieved 5 December 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/history-behind-an-apple-a-day/2013/09/24/aac3e79c-1f0e-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html

24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: I can't revert the edit as requested because there's too many conflicting edits that took place afer you made the request. No issues with the heading request, though, so I did amend the heading as requested. Diff. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Health benefits of apples

Despite the fact that the content cites several meta analyses and systematic reviews that follow WP:MEDRS, User:Zefr seems to be against there being any mention of the research into the health benefits of apples, objecting even to scientific evaluations of the proverb that "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." He deleted the below sentence with the rather perfunctory edit summary "Restore to stable version; there are no health benefits established for consuming apples." which does little to explain why his opinion should supersede the cited MEDRS sources.

Whole fruit apple composition (polyphenols, phytochemicals, flavonoids) has beneficial effects, such as a reduction in cardiovascular risks and cognitive aging.

I recommend that the above sentence be re-instated and user:Zefr be warned about repeatedly deleting well-referenced content capriciously. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References

I suggest you review these articles again for their relevance to apples. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

And the absence of rigorous proof of what effect polyphenols have in vivo, discussed here. Neither the FDA nor EFSA has approved dietary guidance for daily intake levels (as for vitamins and minerals) or health claim status for polyphenols (as for approved drugs) because these compounds and their metabolites cannot be assessed specifically in the body, let alone determined quantitatively after digestion as originating from apple skin. The above reviews are diet association studies with dubious design problems, and cannot be used to determine cause and effect relationships between apple skin polyphenols and anti-disease effects. Accordingly, each of the above reviews stated that a polyphenol diet may have a effect; that is, no conclusions or specific mechanisms of effect were determined, rendering these sources useless for encyclopedic content about apples and human health. --Zefr (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If the extant literature has concluded that these polyphenols/ flavonoids/ phytochemicals "may have an effect" then it should be reported as such in an encyclopedia. Your personal views on the rigor of the studies is noted, but that is why meta-analyses are used on WP, which those are.

Currently, there is only 1 sentence discussing the Health Effects of Apples (saying only that preliminary research is investigating and it cites only 2 primary studies) when there are over 200,000 results on google scholar. On the Apple a day page, I suggested adding the following 2004 lit review from Nutrition Journal that says this: "epidemiological studies have linked the consumption of apples with reduced risk of some cancers, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and diabetes. In the laboratory, apples have been found to have very strong antioxidant activity, inhibit cancer cell proliferation, decrease lipid oxidation, and lower cholesterol." [9]

Despite the fact that Zefr protested when I added this 2004 lit review to the page discussing the proverb, this wiki page already includes a link to this 2004 lit review by Boyer. However, it currently states that"they [Apple phytochemicals] have unknown health value in humans.[64]" In the source article, it actually states "In numerous epidemiological studies, apples have been associated with a decreased risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and asthma... Apples contain a wide variety of phytochemicals, many of which have been found to have strong antioxidant activity and anticancer activity...Both animal and cell culture studies show that there is an association between the polyphenolic compounds found within apples and a wide variety of effects that may help prevent chronic disease. This supports the hypothesis that it is the phytochemicals found in fruits, especially apples, that impart healthy benefits. More research is still needed to clarify the effects of these compounds in vivo. "

I suggest the sentence be expanded to include the context: while phytochemicals have been found to have strong antioxidant activity and anticancer activity in laboratory studies, they have unknown health value in humans.[64] Similarly, the preliminary research is investigating sentence should be expanded to include the associations that have been found re cardiovascular disease, cancer, asthma, diabetes, etc. (while mentioning that the studies did not find causality).

Or here's a 2011 Advances in Nutrition lit review of apples that has similar findings.

Choose whatever lit review/systematic review/meta analysis that meets WP:MEDRS, the end result is there needs to be a better summary of the extant literature re apples' potential health benefits from the past 30+ years. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We're writing for an encyclopedia, not a textbook or journal review where lab results (i.e., primary research) may be included; WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6. There is no human evidence that apples provide any antioxidant effect or value to health. Polyphenol antioxidant effects are observed only in test tubes. WP:MEDREV says: "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." --Zefr (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Zefr you know that's a strawman argument, nobody is talking about including primary research but systematic reviews, which are secondary sources. The argument that the evidence is only indirect is an interesting one, and should be accounted, but I'm not sure it's our role to choose at what degree of directness a source can be used, if the sources infer on apples maybe we should reference them adequately... --Signimu (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviews of primary research are not used to support statements about human health that are only implied and far from proof. WP:CIR: although your and the IP's intent may be sincere in trying to add content to the encyclopedia, the proposed discussion of unproven health effects - whether about apple benefits specifically or apple skin polyphenols generally - doesn't meet the standard of scientifically established benefits. CIR requires "the ability to read sources and assess their reliability" and "avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." --Zefr (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: also, have you actually read the five references above? A typical conclusion is like that of Pham, Do & Lee (2019): "The results suggest that dietary patterns rich in polyphenols may reduce the risk of GDM despite inconclusive evidence for polyphenol-rich food groups". Similarly, Garcia-Larsen et al. (2019): "A PDP [prudent dietary pattern] might reduce the risk of CRC [colorectal cancer]. Conversely, a WDP [Western dietary pattern] is associated with a higher risk of disease." But this is an article about apples, not fruit-and-vegetable-rich diets. So even if the five studies were solid, they wouldn't show anything useful about apples. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr and Peter coxhead: Thank you for your replies and sorry for the delay, I had no computer at my disposal during the last few days Yes I know these references as I was the one adding them, the reason being that each reviewed studies on apples and discuss their results (there are specific points about apples in the content, but not necessarily in the conclusion) and with mixed results (some positives, some negatives). However, I won't and did not argue the fact that they are not only about apples but also other products (apples being only one of the studied proxies for polyphenols/flavonoids effects), and thus are only indirect evidence (and that's why I preferred to update Health_effects_of_phenols_and_polyphenols ). I prefer to add rather than exclude info (with adequate uncertainty explicitly written of course), but I won't extend further the discussion on this point if no other collaborator agree with this, as products are not where my interest lies However one of the systematic reviews do in fact cite this meta-analysis focusing on apples intake and cancer reduction[10], maybe we can add that? --Signimu (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"Oraneg" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Oraneg. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Oraneg until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Please add https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/a-z-of-british-trees/apple/ to the external links.

Please hyperlinked "Malus x domestic" using the weblink above

Malus x domestica - Apple; info, images, and video at Woodland Trust WT Content (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please read Wikipedia’s policy on external links and make a case below for why you think this external link merits inclusion. You may then reopen your edit request by changing the “answered” parameter from “yes” to “no.” Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 15:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Saman ahmad khan (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)  apple is a polysemy word because its has 2 meaning one is fruit and other is incorporation(computer)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Links for apple history

For my own reference, here is some good sources for expanding on the history of apples:

• Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The origin and spread of domesticated plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin, chapter "Fruit trees and nuts", by Daniel Zohary, Ehud Weiss, Maria Hopf
• Apples, Fruit Breed, Volume I: Tree and Tropical Fruits, Jules Janick, James N. Cummins, Susan K. Brown, and Minou Hemmat

Thue (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

The article has an issue with unsourced content and original research. For instance, "Otherwise, there is low content of all micronutrients (table)." has no source and seems to be derived by WP:OR from the table. (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe - Nutritional value can be assessed only on the content of macro- and micronutrients expressed as a % of the Daily Value, values that are calculated in Wikipedia nutrition tables using the USDA Food Central database shown at the bottom of the table, so the table is actually well-sourced and displayed, and is not WP:OR. An apple provides carbohydrates and dietary fiber in good amounts, but the %DV for protein and all micronutrients is well under 10%, indicating an apple is a nutritionally poor food source. If a DV for an individual micronutrient is below 10%, the nutrient and its corresponding amount cannot be displayed on food labels in the US and Canada, indicating that the food is relatively devoid of that nutrient. Here is the FDA consumer explanation of DV. Zefr (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what counts as a "low" content? Compared to what? And it's far from the only unsourced content in the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

%DVs of 0-6%, shown in the nutrition table. Seems obvious this is "low content". Why not try an edit to make your point clear? Zefr (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Genome (as currently published)

In 2010, an Italian-led consortium announced they had sequenced the complete genome of the apple in collaboration with horticultural genomicists at Washington State University,[13] using 'Golden Delicious'.[14] It had about 57,000 genes, the highest number of any plant genome studied to date[15] and more genes than the human genome (about 30,000).[16] This new understanding of the apple genome will help scientists identify genes and gene variants that contribute to resistance to disease and drought, and other desirable characteristics. Understanding the genes behind these characteristics will help scientists perform more knowledgeable selective breeding. The genome sequence also provided proof that Malus sieversii was the wild ancestor of the domestic apple—an issue that had been long-debated in the scientific community.[13]

Genome (suggested for publication)

Apple is diploid, though triploid cultivars are not uncommon, has 17 chromosomes and an estimated genome size of approximately 650 Mb. Several whole genome sequences has been made available, the first one in 2010 was based on the diploid cultivar ‘Golden Delicious’. However, this first whole genome sequence turned out to contain several errors in part owing to the high degree of heterozygosity in diploid apple which, in combination with an ancient genome duplication, complicated the assembly. Recently, double- and trihaploid individuals have been sequenced, yielding whole genome sequences of higher quality. The first whole genome assembly was estimated to contain around 57,000 genes, though the more recent genome sequences support more moderate estimates between 42,000 and 44,700 protein coding genes. Among other things, the availability of whole genome sequences has provided evidence that the wild ancestor of the cultivated apple most likely is Malus sieversii. Re-sequencing of multiple accessions has support this, while also suggesting extensive introgression from Malus sieversii following domestication.

Comments

I propose that the above suggested text replaces the currently published text about the apple genome as above.

Note: I have entered the references in the text as being references to homepages, though I think it would be more appropriate to cite them as scientific articles. Unfortunatley I couldn't figure out how to enter them as such on the Talk page. Jonas Skytte (SLU) (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems quite reasonable to me if the refs are tightened up to be more conventional. Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Tried to improve the refs.Jonas Skytte (SLU) (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Published the suggested change.Jonas Skytte (SLU) Jonas Skytte (SLU) (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

Genome

In 2010, an Italian-led consortium announced they had sequenced the first complete genome of the apple in collaboration with horticultural genomicists at Washington State University, using 'Golden Delicious'. The apple genome has approximately 57,000 genes, which was the highest number of any plant genome studied at the time, and more genes than the human genome which has about 25,000 genes. The modern apple has 17 chromosomes which were found to be derived from an ancestor with 9 chromosomes that experienced genome-wide duplication. The genome sequence also provided proof that Malus sieversii was the wild ancestor of the domestic apple—an issue that had been long-debated in the scientific community. In 2016 a new and much higher quality whole genome sequence (WGS) for a double-haploid derivative of the Golden Delicious variety of apple was published. This new understanding of the apple genome will help scientists identify genes and gene variants that contribute to resistance to disease and drought and other desirable characteristics. Understanding the genes behind these characteristics will help scientists perform more knowledgeable selective breeding.

Since the publication of the Golden Delicious WGS, many scientific discoveries have been made about apples, including that 60% of the apple’s genome is made up of transposable elements, and the identification of what makes apples red. Genetic evidence has confirmed that MdMYB1, which regulates transcription of the anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway, is responsible for the red color in apples.

Apple color is important when it comes to consumer preference, and red apples are generally preferred. An additional genome assembly of the Hanfu apple (HFTH1) was compared to the Golden Delicious (GDDH13) genome and showed extensive genomic variation largely due to transposable elements .

The transcript levels of MdMYB1 and anthocyanin-related structural genes in the skins of Hanfu and Golden Delicious apples are significantly different. MdMYB1 has at least three types of alleles (MdMYB1-1, MdMYB1-2 and MdMYB1-3). MdMYB1-1 is a single dominant allele controlling anthocyanin synthesis in apple skin. In non-red apples, the MdMYB1-2 and MdMYB1-3 alleles show a limited expression under intense light and low-temperature. The coding region differences of these alleles do not have an impact on functionality, and scientists do not yet know the reason for the differences of expression levels in the MdMYB1 alleles. In Golden Delicious and Hanfu apples, the coding sequences of MdMYB1 were the same, but one Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) was found in the intron regions. Upstream of MdMYB1, 15 SNPs and five indels were identified. These indels were very different between the two types of apples. One of these indels is an LTR retrotransposon called redTE, located in the Hanfu apple genome upstream of MbMYB1. RedTE has identical flanking LTRs which means it was a more recent insertion. Many red and non-red apples were tested, and redTE was identified in all of the red apples and none of the non-red apples, meaning that redTE may be responsible for the red color of apples.

Red phenotype of apple associated with an LTR retrotransposon.

Zolli022 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done

But should be discussed for content. I suggest a 50% haircut: "half as much is twice as good." See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6-8. Zefr (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have comments or edits? I'd love to improve the article. Zolli022 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There is worthwhile information here and it appears to be well-sourced. However, there is too much detail for a general article on the apple, and it needs to be summarised by someone with more knowledge of the subject that I have. I notice that this material has been use to create the Apple genome, article, which I think is sensible. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the following edit of the genome section, a bit shorter than the above suggestion while being considerably more up to date than the current version. (Though I'd rather have the references entered as scientific articles than as web pages.)

Discussion seems to have ended. Closing edit request. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Genome

Apple is diploid, though triploid cultivars are not uncommon, has 17 chromosomes and an estimated genome size of approximately 650 Mb. Several whole genome sequences has been made available, the first one in 2010 was based on the diploid cultivar ‘Golden Delicious’. However, this first whole genome sequence turned out to contain several errors in part owing to the high degree of heterozygosity in diploid apple which, in combination with an ancient genome duplication, complicated the assembly. Recently, double- and trihaploid individuals have been sequenced, yielding whole genome sequences of higher quality. The first whole genome assembly was estimated to contain around 57,000 genes, though the more recent genome sequences support more moderate estimates between 42,000 and 44,700 protein coding genes. Among other things, the availability of whole genome sequences has provided evidence that the wild ancestor of the cultivated apple most likely is Malus sieversii. Re-sequencing of multiple accessions has support this, while also suggesting extensive introgression from Malus sieversii following domestication.

Jonas Skytte (SLU) (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what is meant by "establish a consensus"? Zolli022 made a proposal, which got the comment that it was two long. Thus, I have written a second proposal which is much shorter, more concise and more relevant to the topic, in my opinion. So what should I do? Delete the all the other text in this talk-section? I'm completly new to this, and really see the importance of contributing to the wikipedia project, but I don't understand what is required here to get this section updated? The currently published version of this section is obviously not up to date, considering the scientific insights gained over the past 10 years...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Skytte (SLU) (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reopening as no one has given any reason to object to this particular edit. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the reopening is being discussed above at Talk:Apple#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_2_October_2020. I suggest we continue the discussion there. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Apple (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Threading discussions

Folks, I recently stumbled upon this page and I have to say the series of proposed edits is pretty damn confusing to follow, even for a very seasoned editor like myself.

May I suggest that @Jonas Skytte (SLU): or @Zolli022: start a new section with their proposed changes and ask for feedback. For the sake of readability, please set your proposal off from the comments using something like a {{Blockquote paragraphs}} or {{quotation}} and be explicit about what text you'd replace and/or where your text would be placed. Please WP:THREAD your comments and WP:SIGN them so we know who said what when.

Beyond that, if you haven't gotten any comments in a week or so, then make the change. If you have gotten comments (hopefully they won't be as useless as "get a consensus first"), try to engage the commenting editor in refining the proposal, but leaving the original proposal intact. I hope that helps. Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC).

Talk page refs

This section serves to separate the references proposed on this talk page from the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

Apple is now also synonymous with the company apple, leading the term to essentially having a dual meaning. Misrap354 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The hatnote at the top of the article already links to Apple Inc. and there is also a disambiguation page at Apple (disambiguation). — Newslinger talk 08:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"the mountains of Central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and northwestern China"

This text doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. The American Journal of Botany article doesn't appear to mention central Asia anywhere, and the closest the UGA source comes to this is saying The center of diversity of the genus Malus is the eastern Turkey, southwestern Russia region of Asia Minor.

That being said (I found this out after typing the above), when I "Ctrl+F"ed the above ResearchGate page for "Asia" I found this, which not only supports the content in question, it actually contains an entire sentence that we apparently lifted from it without marking it as a quotation (with the exception of the recent change of "Xinjiang, China" to "northwestern China"). Any idea how this happened?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it seems the article in question was (perhaps?) published after our article included the exact wording in question, so that while they cite a number of sources immediately following this text, it seems that they took the text from Wikipedia and attributed it to various other sources that perhaps verify our content. But this doesn't change the fact that our content currently appears not to be verified by the sources attached to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Tom Burford

I recently made an article for Tom Burford, the noted apple historian and orchardist. The article is a work in progress. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Thriley (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

to get access to the article to make minor spelling issuse Ghostedthoughts (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ghostedthoughts: The software behind Wikipedia doesn't let us grant individual editors access to protected pages. If you describe the exact correction (e.g., change speeling to spelling) then someone can make the edit for you. Certes (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

correct misprint on last line of section headed GENOME

"...Malus sieversii following domestication [17]." should be "...Malus sylvestris following domestication [17].". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.207.45 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)