Jump to content

Talk:Apple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleApple has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 31, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 27, 2008Good article reassessmentListed
August 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 18, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
September 4, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

apple=malum, James Geary[edit]

The sentence

The origin of the popular identification with a fruit unknown in the Middle East in biblical times is found in wordplay with the Latin words mālum (an apple) and mălum (an evil), each of which is normally written malum.

has two references, one of them is Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It[1] by James Geary.

I have removed this reference, as it seems clear to me that this author is not a serious linguist. In the same book, just one page later, he claims that the Hebrew name of Eve ("Havvah" = חַוָּה = chet-vav-heh) is derived from "ahavvah" (he means ahavah, אַהֲבָה = aleph-heh-vet-heh, with the root aleph-heh-vet), apparently because chet and heh are often transcribed with the same latin letter h, similarly for vav=v=vet.

--Austrian (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Austrian (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Geary, James (2018). Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It. Norton. p. 5-6. ISBN 978-0-39325495-2.

Germanic paganism[edit]

"The English scholar H. R. Ellis Davidson links apples to religious practices in Germanic paganism, from which Norse paganism developed." This makes it sound as if there was first something called "Germanic paganism" and later something called "Norse paganism" developed from that, which there is no evidence for whatsoever. Çæñå (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory Statement[edit]

It is stated apple seeds were found in Italy in c. 4000 BCE and also that apples arrived in Europe via the Silk Road.

However, in the Silk Road article, it is said to have existed only since 2000 BCE.

Perhaps it would make sense to add a "citation needed"? I am unsure how to proceed. Eh23233 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eh23233, hmm, fair question! My thought is that the silk road statement doesn't mean that there couldn't have been other trading paths coming from east Asia over to Italy/Europe. My guess is that the apples found at the Italian site would be traced to some different source, rather than the Silk Road, but that the Silk Road is what more commonly brought apples to Europe, or popularized them. Since both statements are sourced and they aren't in direct conflict, I think we can leave it for now. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes, on re-reading it i can see how i got confused - they found maybe domesticated apples but they're not sure and i guess if they are then no-one knows how they got there (:
thank you for the response! <3 Eh23233 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024[edit]

217.34.48.59 (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) apples are a very popular fruit[reply]
 Not done They are indeed. If you have any specific sourced text to add to Apple#Production, please insert it below so that it can be added to the article, and edit the template above to read answered=no. Certes (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A previous closure of this discussion was by User:Drmies:

Closed per SNOW, and because the editor who started it is a CU-blocked troll. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I re-closed with different templates in hope that the move bot would handle it correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Heya, I have serval reasons arguing that there is no primary topic, let’s get into it. We’re gonna abide by WP:PTOPIC, which reads as follows: 1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. As evident by page view statistics, strong popularity and usage of iPhone services and products, the trillion-dollar company is the most likely topic that Wikipedia readers will look for. But wait, there also exists the second point: 2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Apples have huge symbolism in historical mythology, human consumption, and cultural influence. In contemporary times, both the corporation and the fruit are widely recognized and significant. I say neither of these topics deserves merit as a primary one, who's with me? DS537(WIR) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Before more editors provide their thoughts on this move request, I strongly encourage people to thoroughly WP:READ the RM proposal itself before making any comments. This has to be clarified because although there is substantial consensus that the fruit has more long-term significance than the company (which I agree with), many opposition arguments are based solely upon that claim. Thank you. DS537(WIR) 21:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a classical example of ambiguity by usage: WikiNav for "Apple" for March '24 shows ~3.4k clickstreams to the company over a total traffic of ~80k, and that 4% or 1/25 is indeed indicative of an issue with navigation from the point of view of reader usage; at the same time WikiNav for "Apple Inc." says there were ~420k incoming views there, which reinforces the former hint. The possibility that in a mass of so many requests there's comparable interest in the fruit and the company/brand is perfectly plausible.
Nevertheless, apple became such a generic, basic English word because it refers to one of the most fundamentally conventional fruits in a lot of the English-speaking world, its long-term significance is not actually comparable with the brand, even if it's a world-wide popular company/brand - it is practically novelty in comparison. So, this is one of the few places where even if we know that we're short-circuiting in a way that leaves a substantial part of readers dependent on search engine short-circuiting logic rather than our navigation - it's probably just fine.
Ultimately, it's hard to say that anybody's astonished by reading about the fruit at "apple" and having to click again for the company/brand. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024[edit]

I want to say it fits well in the mouth Andrew.pearse22 (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Andrew.pearse22 You don't offer a reliable source for your claim. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple&oldid=1222699000"