Talk:Olive (fruit)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. | ||||||
| If you would like to participate, you can improve Olive (fruit), or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | |||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) | ||||||
| High | This article has been rated as a High priority article | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
Olive (fruit) is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
"An improved variety, possessed at first by some small Semitic sect, it was probably slowly distributed to adjacent tribes; and, yielding profusely, with little labor, that oily matter so essential to healthy life in the dry hot climates of the East, the gift of the fruitful tree became in that primitive age a symbol of peace and goodwill among the warlike barbarians." Eh? I propose that the author of this article read the article on "politics and the english language" for a few tips on how to make a point and be done with it.
The prose which this article displays, is, in the main, of a nature not wholly inferior to that of the article concerned with the olive tree in verbosity and archaizing prosody. Of its origins, nothing is certain. It is sometiems thought to have been transferred, from an antique manuscript of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica emnating from the Levant, by that method referred to in the vulgar idiom as "cut-and-paste," perhaps by a Spaniard racconteur (accepting the consensus dating that assigns it to the period of "Francis I "El Condor" of Spain) who was then travelling in those parts; or otherwise a perfidious Armenian, who smuggled the text out of Syria sometime during the reign of Hafiz Abu Bashur, who should nowise be misconstrued a relative of that famous Persian bard Hafez-e Shirazi. In any event, the text seems to have suffered greatly by the well-meaning but untrained hand of the Anglo-Saxon conqueror, and is today considered badly corrupted and in need of careful pruning, perhaps by Greek farmers imported to Wikistan expressly for that purpose. --Jpbrenna 18:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Um, yeah. For example: "The gourmet of the empire valued the unripe fruit, steeped in brine, as a provocative to the palate, no less than his modern representative." This could have been lifted directly from Gibbon; it's distracting in an encyclopedia article. The self-referential comment above is merely smirky in its preciousness. Just the facts!!! --Jim Abraham 23:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. The olive is not a hobbit. --sny
I expected something a little more direct, point-driven and a lot less verbose. Some points on the preparation of both ripened and unripened olives for consumption, for example, are not readily apparent (if it's there, it's buried).
The (mind-numbing) prose aside, is this article even a worthwhile read? It's not even really about the olive in general, but about some sort of "intellectual" history of the olive. Maybe it should just be deleted...?--weriov 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, this article does not focus very much on the fruit itself. The whole article is about the history and the symbolism behind the olive. It does not zero in on the taste, preparation, or typical consumption of the fruit. Nor does it mention the status of its popularity in various countries, its impressive nutritional value, or even its manufacturing for olive oil(except a mention of heroes soaking their bodies in it). If it did mention any of these things, than I must have missed it among the barage of historical facts. This article needs some serious cleaning up.
I agree. I was hoping to find out more about the Olive Medley in my fridge. No such luck! There is some decent info under "Olive" on a few varieties and the "Olive Oil" article is good. I'd like some info on commercial-scale production, different stuffing options, culinary uses, recipes, etc. --kp
[edit] Headings.
Why is the whole article under the heading "History"?69.218.184.139 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is pointless and so affected to render it a curiosity. This page is necessary or the olive tree page needs more rigorous information on the fruit, its harvest, method of brining curing and the like.
[edit] Nutritional Value
I think there should be some information on nutritional value, nutr. characteristics and nutr. functions with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.149.201 (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
I agree, I came here hoping to find out about the nutritional value of the olive and it's got no such information in it. 83.216.157.38 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quality
This article is terrible. The main Olive article has far better information on history, and that shouldn't be duplicated (or worse, contradicted) here. This article should concentrate on olives to eat, and refer to the main article on olive oil. --Macrakis 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to be deleted. It's a horrible, rambling discombobulated mess and makes no sense. If this was my first time coming to wikipedia I would never return. Would you? Would anyone? I would think that wikipedia was a joke it I hadn't read numerous other articles before this one. I mean, if this is supposed to be about olives that we eat and you are coming here to read about that and this is what you get? Good god y'all! Obviously it needs to be completely redone and it appears no one wants to do it. Is there any way to simply contact the person who wrote this and just explain to him/her why it's not acceptable and ask that person to redo it? If this article is allowed to remain as is (because none of us want to take the tedious chore of revamping it) the person who wrote it will think this is an acceptable form of writing articles for wikipedia and might decide to let loose on a whole variety of subjects. I'm not being sarcastic either. Rancordoll 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
