Talk:Apple

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)

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)

hi yo dude hi yo hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.82.128.95 (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2019 (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)

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple&diff=911906746&oldid=911028041 and https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)