Talk:Walnut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Walnut Shells - industrial uses[edit]

Two years ago I did some detailed research into walnut shells and it's many uses, from industrial cleaners to lubricants. I wrote this up in Wikipedia, but it looks like someone decided it wasn't worthy of making it on "their" page and deleted it. My research took many a few days to compile and I thought it was valuable to the reader. Can someone please explain why this was removed. I can't see in the pages Edit history, as this only goes back to last year.

As this has now happened to a few research projects I have undertaken for Wikipedia over the years, this will be my very last post to Wikipedia where knowledge sharing now seems to take a back seat to wiki protocol.

Bitterly disappointed, Donovan Ransome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Need THIS page[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It should not just be redirected to Juglans, but should be a page in its own right for the nut (as well as the juglans page, comparable with the other food/nut pages, such as Almond and Hazelnut pages, with the info box of nutrition. Would people favour creation of this page?

IceDragon64 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Which page is "THIS page", IceDragon64? — Jay L09 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Storage[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) "They need to be kept dry and refrigerated to store well; in warm conditions they become rancid in a few weeks, particularly after shelling." I keep 'm shelled in a vacuum container; they are perfectly edible after well over a year of storage. 83.160.162.119 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keeping oxygen out will certainly reduce the rate of deterioration. But they still won't be as good as fresh walnuts; try germinating one to see if it will grow (that's the best test for quality) - MPF 10:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know how to harvest them? I just moved into a house that has a beautiful tree and I would like to take advantage of it.

Just pick 'em up off the ground and scrub off the mushy black hull. If you're in a hurry you can try whacking them down with a long stick, but they should come down on their own when ripe with no trouble. 9tmaxr (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nutrition and medical claims[edit]

Nutrition?[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I came to this page looking for nutritional information, but found nothing significant. Octothorn 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This page covers the entire genus Juglans. Nuts from different species in the genus have different nutritional profiles. In particular, the tropical members of Juglans have a higher proportion of palmitate (a/k/a "saturated fat") in their seed oil than the temperate ones. A nutritional profile for the English walnut can be found on the Juglans regia page, where it belongs. Jay L09 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Omega-3[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) "Walnuts are also an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids, and have been shown as helpful in lowering cholesterol." This is in direct contradiction with Omega-3_fatty_acids, which states: "Walnuts (Juglans regia) contain small amounts of omega-3 yet high amounts of omega-6, so are likely to be detrimental in a diet already rich in omega-6.[3] Black walnuts (Juglans nigra) have a marginally more favorable omega-3:omega-6 ratio, but are still a poor means of improving the omega-3:omega-6 dietary ratio." 83.160.162.119 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If the common ratio in people's diets overall can be as high at 30:1 in favor of omega-6, and walnuts offer a 4:1 ratio, that's an improvement. If you ate nothing but 4:1 foods you'd be shrinking that enormous gap. It's still a diet with more omega-6 than omega-3, but given that it's a far larger proportion of the whole than other foods (say, a food that's 26:1)you're receiving more 3s and less 6s in terms of the nutritional density. At the very least, then, it's logical to say they are an excellent source of the acid, at least in relative terms. I can't speak to the second half about cholesterol. I couldn't find the quote or source any longer in the article you mentioned, so I can't be sure what they're referencing when referring to walnuts as a detriment, but semantically the argument doesn't wash unless it's substantiated somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.233.86 (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Omega 3's — Case? Plural? Remove?[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The "Nuts" subsection contained the statement

One ounce of black walnut has 16.7 grams of total fat and .57 grams of omega 3’s. One ounce of English walnuts has 18.5 grams of total fat and 2.6 grams of omega 3’s.

with the reference

http://www.walnuts.org/walnuts101/faq.php#menu9

which appears to be a trade organization trying to make a convincing claim that you should buy its product.
On 2009Apr30, Flibirigit tried to fix the slipshod phrase "omega 3’s" (a contraction of "omega-3 fatty acids") by removing the "'s", citing something about the genitive case and plural tense. I have put the direct quote of the industry site back in its original form, and surrounded it with quotation marks. Perhaps we should completely delete the two sentences. Or find a more reliable reference for this alleged information (I have tried and failed). In any case, we should not try to fix a sales pitch of unclear veracity to make it seem more reliable than it is. Jay L09 (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Update to Omega 3's — Case? Plural? Remove?[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) On 2 Feb 2010, Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) removed the cautionary clause about a commercial source and unidentified black walnut species, and replaced it with an apparently irrelevant statement that there are 17 species of black walnut, together with a "fact" tag disputing the new assertion. Heroeswithmetaphors left the slipshod commercial statement. 128.84.183.111 subsequently added some commercial messages that were even more clearly POV, and spread the tag to several of the species that had earlier been identified as "black walnuts", and Favonian (talk, recognizing the blatant POV hidden inside the additional spurious "fact" tags, reverted the changes by 128.84.183.111, but left the old POV material. (summary by Jay L09 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

I have now removed the questioned claim that there are 17 species of black walnut, together with the commercial claim about "omega 3’s". A longer discussion about the fatty acid contents of various walnut species, organized by section, has been retained. Jay L09 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

aphrodisiac effects ?[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The link alleging aphrodisiac effects[1] was placed here without a signature. The article, which seems to be suggesting that (English) walnuts are some sort magical cure for erectile dysfunction (ED) actually shows that extreme malnutrition can cause ED, and that walnuts contain protein—no news. Jay L09 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


Health benefits[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Stumbled upon this article: A Walnut Diet Improves Endothelial Function in Hypercholesterolemic Subjects. A Randomized Crossover Trial (PMID 15037535). If the information is true, it would be good to include the health claims of walnut consumption in the article.--CopperKettle 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. A quote from the article: Nuts are fatty foods rich in unsaturated fatty acids.1 Epidemiological studies have shown that frequent nut consumption decreases the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), with adjusted relative risk reductions approaching 50% for nut intakes of >4 to 5 servings per week compared with little or no intake.2–4 Feeding trials have demonstrated that healthy diets enriched with a variety of nuts consistently reduce total and LDL cholesterol by 5% to 15%.1,4–8 The lipid effects of nut intake only explain in part the CAD risk reduction observed in prospective studies, suggesting that nuts might have antiatherosclerotic effects beyond cholesterol lowering.

Besides having a favorable fatty acid profile, nuts are a rich source of bioactive compounds with potential benefit on CAD risk such as dietary fiber, folic acid, and antioxidants.1 Nuts also contain sizeable amounts of L-arginine, the precursor amino acid of the endogenous vasodilator nitric oxide (NO).9 Walnuts differ from all other nuts by a high content of -linolenic acid (ALA), a vegetable n-3 fatty acid,10 which might confer them additional antiatherogenic properties.11--CopperKettle 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the journal article referenced by CopperKettle, I have "cleaned" the treatment of this study, as follows:

  • Replaced "unhealthy" with "saturated" fat.
  • Replaced "researcher" with "researchers" in second mention to make the statements parallel.
  • Replaced "8" with "40 g" shelled walnuts to follow the referenced journal article.
  • Removed "the following week". The order of the meals was randomized.
  • Changed statement about dangerous inflammation and oxidation to deny any changes, in accordance with the referenced journal article. Replaced the apparently claimed effects on the arteries with the concentrations in the blood samples, in accordance with the referenced journal article.
  • Removed second mention of saturated fat.
  • Removed "helped" phraseology which was typical of advertising copy: either there was an effect or there was not; the experimental conditions did not "help" to produce an effect.
  • Increased detail in discussion of arterial flexibility discussion.
  • Added professional connection between the lead researcher and the walnut industry.
  • Changed "said" to "speculated that" to more accurately reflect the following content.
  • Removed "plant-based" as unnecessary. Jay L09 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire section seems to deal with English walnuts (Juglans regia). I have moved the section on health benefits from the Juglans page to the Juglans regia page. Jay L09 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

More Nutrition Comments[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe you ought to move some of it back? I just came to this page to find out something about walnuts. I assumed that any available information on the nuts, what their composition is and health benefits would be in an article titled 'walnut', which is what people call what they buy in shops. I only realised I maybe ought to look in a different article because of this comment here, which isn't going to help most readers. The article elsewhere seems to equate 'English walnuts' with 'common walnuts', implying they are the normal sort people will meet. Sure, if different varieties have different composition, then explain this, but if you say nothing, people will assume there is nothing known.
The article currently says
which I found unhelpfull, since it states the number of grams of omega 3 in one ounce? perhaps we can have %fat (suit both ounce and gram users) or at least grams of fat per 100 gram walnut (consistent units). Also typical weight of one walnut, and a note that different species differ. I can't agree that a general article should not mention composition. particularly if this differs for different species. The place to explain about differences between them would be in the generic article, ie here. There also seem to be health benefits associated with arginine, vitamins and minerals, all of which must be in some degree generic and ought to be mentioned here. Whether there are any definite health benefits is also beside the point, because the composition ought to be mentioned. Sandpiper (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sandpiper, you have touched on several different topics, and seem to be confusing nutrition with some advertising masquerading as science. I will try to address a few of your concerns (taxonomy, units, general articles, and composition)
Please consider moving your comment, Sandpiper, and my responses under the heading "Nutrition?"Jay L09 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


The health benefits of walnuts[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I've npov-tagged this new section. It's far too large, missing key information (such as what types of walnuts were studied), and is based upon individual studies rather than reviews indicating medical consensus. See WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the section to the article on Juglans regia, because the commonly available food called "walnut" is the meat of the Juglans regia fruit. Jay L09 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That is a nutty thing to do, at least without a very prominent link. Most people interested in health aspects of walnuts would just read this main article and have no way of knowing all the info is squirreled away elsewhere. And much of the info on health aspects available does not specify which kind of walnut was studied, so where is the fact basis for just throwing it all into Juglans regia?-71.174.187.200 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the nuts of walnut tree are nutty. There is a prominent enough link in the taxonomy section to allow "most people" to find out that the information about J. regia is "squirreled away" in the J. regia article. — Jay L09 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I too am frustrated that much of the literature on the health aspects of walnuts does not specify which species is being described. However, such articles do not deserve more widespread citation just because of their low quality. Perhaps, per the comments of 71.174.187.200 (talk), I (or other editors) should be more bold in deleting such unclear content. — Jay L09 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

is this page sponsored?[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The exaggerated claims of health benefits make me suspect that commercial interests are being supported (Miimno (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

No, Miimno, commercial interests are not being supported. However, commercial interests can buy an editor to boldly add their commercial message. You can be just as bold and remove it. But not this time. I already have. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Because the health benefits section has been replaced, I have moved it here for discussion: "Scientists from Pennsylvania recommend walnuts as part of a healthy diet.[1] Of the nine different nuts studied, walnuts were found to have antioxidants of the greatest quality and potency. The walnut's antioxidants are between two and 15 times as powerful as vitamin E.[1] Health benefits are greatest from raw walnuts because the heat from roasting reduces antioxidant quality.[1]" — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
When I first removed it (in response to the comment above by Miimno (talk), I made the note: "Remove imprecise advertising content. Which walnuts? Which doctors? Also "how to" statement." When the section was replaced, it bore the comment (by 209.183.22.169) "since when is the BBC an advertiser?". I see several issues here to address:
  • Is the source and its summary imprecise? (no objection so far) There is no identification of the "Doctors" in the summary, or the venue in which the claim was put forward. An industry meeting? A marketing meeting? An off the cuff comment at the amusement park? In an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (which should be cited instead of the BBC)? There is certainly no discussion of the way in which the "potency" of the "walnuts" was assayed, in-vitro or in-vivo which is an important consideration for any health claims. Indeed, the only reference to any consensus is that "nuts" are good for you. The other "nuts" (which the consensus says are healthful) which are disparaged are also not identified. To be useful, this section needs to be much more specific— Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this advertising content? The objection is that the BBC does not publish advertising content. Of course it does. Most stuff published in health news columns is advertising content, especially if it is hawking the health benefits of some food. If 209.183.22.169 wishes to prove that the BBC does not publish advertisements, this is the place to discuss it. — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Does the summary say which walnuts? No. Also no objection by 209.183.22.169. Since this is a generic article about the genus Juglans, the species of walnut addressed in this summary of an advertisement should be identified. — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The summary ends in a "how to" statement. These are prohibited in Wikipedia. (no objection by 209.183.22.169 so far) — Jay L09 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited the statement so it's no longer "how to". You could have edited it further yourself if it was still not to your satisfaction. There is no justification for removing the entire paragraph containing information from a presentation to the American Chemical Society. It's strange that you would remove sourced material published in the BBC and Time Magazine http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/29/the-supernut-walnuts-pack-a-powerful-dose-of-antioxidants/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12865291 while completely unreferenced advertising material does not seem to bother you at all. Why haven't you removed this material if you're so genuinely concerned about advertising? It doesn't have even the apparently unreliable BBC to support it:

"said to tonify kidneys, strengthen the back and knees, warm and hold qi in lungs and help kidneys to grasp the qi, moisten the intestines and move stool. It is believed to stop asthma and is prescribed to be taken between bouts of asthma, but not for acute asthma. It is also used by the elderly to relieve constipation." 64.56.228.62 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added many more sources, including universities. Much better referenced than that section on Chinese medicine which you left alone.64.56.228.62 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the blatant commercial content about a foodstuff from this page about a plant genus to its own new article, Walnut. I am also copying this topic and the next to the talk page. — Jay L09 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nutritional information[edit]

(originally posted under Juglans — Jay L09 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Three tables containing extensive information on all the nutritional characteristics of three different species seems excessive. Right now the nutrition data goes all the way into the external links section and displaces several images. I guess I don't mind the three species being present, but I really don't see the need for that level of detail for three species, which is why I only included basic information like fat, protein, carbohydrates and total energy. Including three tables with this brief summary makes sense to me, but three full ones with all the available vitamin and mineral information seems like something you would include in the daughter articles. Makes sense to me to have only the information from the English walnut or whichever is most commonly eaten. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to have only comparative information on nutrition on a generic page. Perhaps, (as suggested above) it would make more sense to change the name of this page to "Juglans" and have "Walnut" redirect to "Juglans regia": several talk editors (above) seem to think that "Walnut" means the fruit of the Persian walnut.

Also note that the USDA database information is about the English walnut, dried black walnut and the butternut, not the Persian. The picture is also of an English walnut, not Persian. I also removed the caffeine, alcohol, B12 and any other fields that were empty. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

More modest information should be presented than the exaggerated and partially substantiated assertions vis-á-vis "health benefits" and "antioxidants". I am thinking along the lines of the previous comment to include only generic nutritional information for certain species commonly produced specifically for food. (Miimno (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

More modest? If the shoe fits, why not wear it? Of course, the shoe probably does not fit in this case. The exaggerated, allegedly substantiated (Doctors agree? Which doctors?), and imprecise section has been removed. By the way, Miimno, you can also boldly remove advertising content. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some mention or at least link should be made concerning the special and highly sought after properties of the wood of the walnut tree. It carves and takes checkering and engraving like a dream, and accepts linseed and other oil coatings like a dream.26 December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.40.140 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Walnut wood is covered in the articles on walnut trees, such as Juglans regia#Other uses. You could expand the description there. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Walnut mold[edit]

The second paragraph goes on about how bad it can be. Very important info, I guess. But pretty useless unless you're going describe how to actually identify it. If it can't easily be identified, then shouldn't that be noted? 122.59.225.50 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning Usage[edit]

Saw section on 'cleaning', updated what a CH-47 is , by adding a reference to the actual page for a CH-47, a type of helicopter, but saw that there was no reference to the actual incident that the paragraph mentions. While any machine that fails, is catastrophic, it should have a reference. I have not found one yet. Added the keyword citation needed to the paragraph end. Richard416282 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added a very reliable reference for the involvement of walnuts in this crash, and have corrected US Air Force to US Army. However, this reference does not confirm that this use of walnuts by the US military has been discontinued. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems self-contradictory[edit]

The ideal temperature for longest possible storage of walnut seeds is in the -3 to 0℃ and low humidity — for industrial and home storage. However, such refrigeration technologies are unavailable in developing countries where walnuts are produced in large quantities; there, walnut seeds are best stored below 25℃ and low humidity.

So walnut seeds are ideally stored at -3 to 0℃ except in developing countries where they are best stored "below 25℃". This needs re-wording. Tonywalton Talk 23:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Walnut Seeds or just Walnuts?[edit]

The numerous references to walnut seeds are clumsy and add nothing useful. Presumably they are seeds by the formal botanical definition, but in normal language they are just walnuts. I propose we use should only walnut seeds if it is necessary to distinguish them from walnut trees or walnut timber. Any comments? Verbcatcher (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been no comments on this, so I have made the change. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Pickled[edit]

Pickled walnuts can be either savory or sweet depending on in what is the packing concentrate. Both are pickled in a brine as to rid them of their tannin but the sweet are cooked in a simple syrup in which after the appropriate time they are then packed.GinAndChronically (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Candied walnuts are different from pickled walnuts. Pickled walnuts can be prepared with a liquor that is either acidic or sweet. Candied walnuts are cooked in sugar or syrup, but as far as I know they are not soaked in brine before cooking. I used Google to search for "candied walnuts"; none of the recipes in the first eight links involved soaking in brine. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion as to what is the current text. "Candied walnuts" is no longer an issue and the second text change has clearly made the distinction. "Pickled walnuts" which uses green/unformed-shell walnuts can be either savory or sweet depending in which type of solution is used by which to preserve them. The tannin has to be substantially removed before preserving which uses a brine. The brine is not to be confused with the preservation solution. The brining process is merely to remove the tannin so that your reaction to the pickled walnuts is not what is experienced when by mistake one has opportunity to put hand to mouth without benefit of having washed ones hands after handling unhusked-ripened walnuts. If you want savory pickled walnuts a solution that usually includes vinegar and spices or flavoring agents of ones own desires are used whereas the sweet are preserved in a sugar solution that can also contain spices or flavoring agents of ones own choice. "Candied walnuts" is a process that uses only the ripened walnut meats after being shelled. A search on "pickled walnuts" will show various recipes by which to make them as savory or sweet; not candied although sweet pickled walnuts might to some be considered candy having a sweet reaction. The confusion may partially involve what is a common reaction from those that are unfamiliar with pickled walnuts. There is not shell in pickled walnuts because the walnuts used are harvested before the shell has formed so there is no softening of a fully formed shell that is found when they are ripe for use of the meat. When regarding pickled walnuts, black walnuts although they can be after ripening can be more shell than meat. It is not the meat but the entire fruit including the husk and unformed-shell that is intended to be preserved and appreciated. So a search on "candied walnuts" certainly was not going to include "pickled walnuts" recipes that would show in its preservation process a brining period.GinAndChronically (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I take your point. The current text is ok (if syntactically complex). I was unfamiliar with pickled walnuts in syrup, only being familiar with the vinegar-based version (which can be more or less sweet). I suspect that pickled walnuts in vinegar are mainly a British delicacy and pickled walnuts in syrup (or in honey) are from around the eastern Mediterranean: Greece, Georgia, Cyprus, and possibly also Turkey and Lebanon. This style is not described in the pickled walnuts article. As you appear to know more about this than me, perhaps you could update Pickled Walnuts. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The pickling article says Pickling is the process of preserving food by anaerobic fermentation in brine or vinegar. This does not appear to apply to walnuts preserved in syrup. You say The brining process is merely to remove the tannin, so presumably anaerobic fermentation does not occur, and this is an example of food preservation in an anti-microbial syrup, see Food preservation#sugar. If you agree with this analysis then don't add walnuts in syrup to the pickled walnuts article, but consider a new article on this food. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to work against common usage then go at it but check the internet and see what it says when you pull up hits on pickled walnuts--savory or sweet. How is it to be explained about sweet relish? Some sweet pickled walnut recipes call for vinegar so again change the world?GinAndChronically (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to prove a point, or to go against common usage. The pickling article may well be to narrow, and I agree that many pickles are not pickled according to that definition. However, I question the use of the term pickled walnuts to refer to products such as the Greek Glyko Karydaki. Glyko Karydaki has a very sweet sugar syrup of a honey-like consistency, and I would classify this as confectionery. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is like being on a carousel going up and down and all around and getting absolutely no where. I've seen green walnut and fully ripe walnut pickled. I have eaten them. I have seen recipes for MANY types of these "pickled" walnuts. A;; I know is that I am not over your shoulder peering at what it is that you have reviewed. I go on the internet (not goggle) and see these things. Am, I hallucinating? What is to be said about those recipes that include malt vinegar and brown sugar? There are ENFLESS recipes depending on the tradition of the area, the practice of the person and the ingredients availability to the person. Britain does not hold from the remainder of the world the capability to pickle walnuts. I am not forcing any one to believe anything although it just might be funny to see how people react to pulling of their leg. But I do not believe that it will end up as an episode on America's Funniest Videos. When I start on the canning of my pickled green walnuts this week I will be using a mutlittude of ingredients including sugar, vinegar, spices, peel, blah blah blah. All I can say is review the internet and you will see a life much different than what is to be believed.GinAndChronically (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am drawing a distinction between walnuts in a vinegar-based liquor and those in a sugar syrup (probably made without vinegar). Most vinegar-based recipes will include sugar; this does not mean that the resulting product is sweet. The current text is Pickled walnuts that are the whole fruit can be savory or sweet depending on the preserving solution. This gives a misleading classification between "savory pickled" and "sweet pickled"; there is a wide range of recipes, and a continuum of sweetness. I propose Pickled walnuts preserve the whole fruit including the husk in a vinegar-based solution. We might add Walnuts are also preserved in a sugar syrup, such as the Greek dish Glyko Karydaki. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, with that strategy I think it is about time the article on diamond be broken up into each grade and subgrade possibility as it really is not in a sufficiently developed state to be of real long term use to anyone that consults WP. That way there will be an article on one particle example of diamond, then the next, then the next, etc etc etc. Pickled walnuts can be separated into various articles of how green is the walnut at curing time, including separating into an article based on what particular amounts of this or that is used etc etc etc and whether that ingredient is French sea salt kosher, iodized, blackened, plain, Hungarian roasted, and of course all the different vinegars and the % of acidity and what is the medium from which that vinegar is derived and whether it was wood cask cured, etc etc etc. And then of course a separate article on each type of sugar used whether that is palm, or coconut, or sugar cane, of some grain, or harvested during the three weeks following equinox, etc etc etc. Let's just call it the mountain out of a mole hill definition of article development. Increasingly I am thinking that Jackie DeShannon had it right.23:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical benefits and Claims[edit]

please see this comparison of changes to see which specific changes I am referring to: history diff

I wanted to point out that someone probably with vested interest will come back and add the claim to the text again. The text I had written simply reorganized the data and showed that plant-derived ALA does have health benefits. Removing the claim that long-chain omega-3s are healthier is risky because some will want to promote the differences, and I expect they will find a way back into the article. If that does happen, personally I don't have a complaint to it, but I feel that the text as it was before either of us changed the article was definitely misleading in showing ALAs and other nutrients in walnuts as not beneficial to health.

I'd ask that anyone adding back in distinctions and nuances about different omegas threes please re-add my edit that shows unambiguously the US government's claim that plant derived ALAs are beneficial to health. — robbie page talk 14:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

since people are posting refs in text here:

  1. ^ a b c "Walnuts are the healthiest nut, say scientists". BBC News. March 27, 2011. Retrieved March 28, 2011.