Talk:Almond

Sometimes a shrub

@Zerf in the Levant the plant never exceeds 4 meters and only grows as a shrub. דולב חולב (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Almonds -_in_shell,_shell_cracked_open,_shelled,_blanched.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 16, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The almond (Prunus amygdalus) is a species of tree in the family Rosaceae, the roses. It prospers in a moderate Mediterranean climate with cool winter weather, and is native to Iran and surrounding countries, although it is rarely now found wild in its original setting. The fruit of the almond is a drupe, consisting of an outer hull and a hard shell with the seed; botanically, it is not considered a true nut. It is used extensively as a culinary nut, however, and is cultivated worldwide. Around 80% of the world's almond supply is produced in the US state of California. This photograph shows an almond drupe in shell, shell cracked open, unshelled and blanched seed.

Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

Recently featured:

• Trithemis annulata
• Al-Hajj
• Heart Nebula

Iran-focused editing

This edit and several others made today use an Iran-based source ("Iranica Online") and interpretations which are not supported by WP:SCIRS sources for the origin and distribution of almond.

Encyclopedia Britannica establishes the broad region of southwestern Asia (not specifically mentioning Iran) as the origin region of almond, a conclusion supported by the Ladizinsky review. There is no source-supported reason to attribute almond's origin or present-day distribution to Iran, which is not among the top five countries in 2022 almond production (production section and table).

The Iranica Online site does not impress as an objective, reliable source for the almond article. Iranica Online lays claims to almond origin and current distribution in Iran, while the peer-reviewed Ladizinsky article shows a wider origin and distribution not specific to Iran or any one country.

Further, Iran appears to be 7th in world production of almonds, according to the FAOSTAT source for the production section.

Please discuss issues here with other editors without continuous edit warring for your point of view based on the Iranica Online website. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: Disagreed, Encyclopedia Iranica is a high quality (tertiary) source, it is written by prominent experts of any topic that is dealt with in it. Besides, replacing Iranica with Britannica, a low quality source was all but a good idea. Also, I think that the warnings on the talk page of IP are, for many of them, irrelevant, as their edits were made in good faith and, ultimately, they are right when they mention Iran as a center of origin of almonds. I humbly suggest you consider removing them, as per WP:BITE. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus on Wikipedia or published evidence that Iranica Online is high-quality or superior as a source compared to Encyclopedia Britannica, which is widely used as a general source across Wikipedia. The Doug Weller criticism is from one person in a discussion 7 years ago that Britannica is unreliable, whereas a review of the many discussions about Britannica at WP:RSN shows plentiful defense and favor of using it as a source that should be fine for general statements like "almonds are native to southwestern Asia"; this wide regional origin is practical and is also what the Ladizinsky source states.

The Iranica article clearly is an Iran-centric view, stating that "Prunus amygdalus is undoubtedly native to the Iranian land-mass", which could be claimed by any country in southwestern Asia. There is nothing in peer-reviewed literature that states "Iran is a center of origin of almonds."

Concerning the incoherent message by the IP user below, a talk page is for discussing an improvement to the article with support by a WP:RS reference, WP:TALK. It is not a place for airing out opinions, WP:NOTFORUM. Zefr (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken by the name of Encyclopedia Iranica. Besides, the doubts about Britannica raised by Doug Weller are shared by many editors here, including me and others and his concerns still stand i.e. Britannica articles are often written by one person and "fact checked" by Britannica editors, which means that Britannica is not as strong as you seem to believe.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear user It seems better that Correct it because you didn't read correctly. Iranika did not say what the plant's distribution is like today, he said about the origin of the plant, while your source examines today's trade, Iranika mentions the historical origin.

Your words are very irrelevant,for example, "If we trade bananas in another country today and we are the first rank, while India does not have a trade rank with the origin of bananas, then we can say that bananas aren't for India." It is not because today it does not have a rank in business or does not do business at all?!"" This is a historical discussion, not business.

it seems that you are not looking at the sources correctly, or you seem to think that it is clearly mentioned several times in this reliable site that it is of historical origin in Iran, while the wild nature of this plant is rarely found in Iran or elsewhere today. It seems that you are clearly trying to remove the name of Iran from the article because you are deleting the reliable sources, you are deleting the content, you said that you do not accept the source, we put a very reliable and clear source, but you still deleted the sources and even wrote Iran-focused here. In addition, what is clear is that today's commercial production of the country has nothing to do with the historical origin of the plant .It should be noted, you said almonds Wikipedia does not support Iranica. A page on wikipedia doesn't support anything, it's wikipedia that supports it or not, Iranica is one of the most reliable References, it's better, it's very biased.2A02:4540:61:28A9:FAE5:6B08:39B2:33A6 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: I suggest you discuss your edits here instead of edit-warring. The sources that are cited mainly mention Iran and some surrounding countries as the center of origin, I don't get well why you refuse to follow WP:WEIGHT and keep mentioning many countries just as if they were considered the center of origin of almond like Iran or the levant.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

New sources and expanded text

The several improvements contained in this edit are being challenged by a user with no feedback in edit summaries or here on the talk page. Per WP:BURDEN, the challenge needs to identify better sources and reasons for not accepting the sourced content. Zefr (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the problem with the quality of sources ? Both Iranica and Imani are good sources.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Those two sources are in use, but are not the only sources discussing the hypothesis (also called controversy) of what geographic location is the origin or almonds. Your adherence to mention only Iran displays an absence of possibility that the origin of almonds is not Iran, but a wide geographic area from the Mediterranean to China - the sources discuss this. Zefr (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

But your edits do no comply with WP:WEIGHT, the Iranian or Levant claim is more strong than the Iraqi, Turkish etc. Also, you should wait to achieve consensus instead of edit-warring.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sentences in the origin section that were improved with sources and sourced content:

1. the geographic origin is controversial (described by authors as an hypothesis or a riddle): sourced by Imani, Martínez-Gómez, Ladizinsky and Chin

2. origins were in Central Asia between Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, or in an eastern Asian subregion between Mongolia and Uzbekistan: sourced by the same 4 references above (mentions Iran, which seems to be your main focus for attributing origin, when a much wider geographic area is botanically likely and supported by archeological findings)

3. only Iranica and selected parts of the Imani ref focus on Iran (both are Iranian sources).

Your claim of WP:WEIGHT is false, as only two refs focus on an Iran origin when other sources describe a wide geographic origin is likely. A claim of WEIGHT cannot apply to an unknown. Zefr (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the paragraph Wikiviani disputes, when it was prepared with reputable sources and given neutral treatment per WP:BALANCE:

The precise origin of the almond is controversial due to estimates for its emergence across wide geographic regions. Sources indicate that its origins were in Central Asia between Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, or in an eastern Asian subregion between Mongolia and Uzbekistan. In other assessments, both botanical and archaeological evidence indicates that almonds originated and were first cultivated in West Asia, particularly in countries of the Levant. Other estimates specified Iran and Anatolia (present day Turkey) as origin locations of the almond, with botanical evidence for Iran as a possible origin center.

Rather than warring over your singular view that Iran is a specific origin, please address the content of this paragraph. Zefr (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There are only few sources cited for the origin of almond, 2 are supporting an iranian claim, the fact that these sources are Iranian is irrelevant, they are reliable. Also, another editor reverted a similar edit of yours few days ago, what is the purpose of edit-warring against several editors to impose your version ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: Could you wait for the discussion to conclude before retoring your dodgy edits ???---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)