Talk:Orange (fruit)/Archive 1

Short on expertise

The article was a little short on professional expertise, IMHO. Like it was written by researchers instead of someone who has spent their life working with oranges. Being a "navel orange freak" for over 50 years I've waited each year for navel season. Some years they are so sweet that I actually suspect sugar has been added. So I was a little disappointed with the lack of discussion of factors that affect quality and taste. Something a long-time grower might provide an opinion on.

Pollutive Fruit

On the Orange page it states that it's possible that the orange was a hybrid of the tangerine and the pomelo. But, when you read the pomelo entry, it states that the tangelo is a hybrid between the tangerine and pomelo. Can two fruits (i.e orange and tangelo) be differing hybrids from the same two sources? Stewart McAbney 10:38, 5 May 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is possible for two hybrids of the same parentage to produce different looking plants, mainly due to what genetics it inherits. But the orange has been cultivated in china for a long time and therefore is not likely to look exactly like the first hybrid that was its ancestor. --Bjw e bb (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's possible both are correct, but people who read it might suppose that there's no genetic difference between a tangelo and an orange. "x is a hybrid between y and z" is obviously not enough information to differentiate species. Since in this article it's stated as speculation, I suggest it be stricken entirely. --76.223.219.98 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joke

I was wondering what is the black stuff that is sometimes present on the bottom of navel oranges, I tried searching for this on google and wikipedia but didn't find anything. If anyone knows what it is, I think it would be very useful to include it in the article. Sticks!

Just in case you are wondering what it looks like, it is something black that seems to go inside the orange about a centimeter or so. You can clearly see it from the outside if you look at the navel part of the orange, but usually it's not present. I would say 5-10% of the navel oranges I have seen have this.

Nah.. it came from someone saying: Knock knock. Who's there? Banana. Banana who? Knock knock. Who's there? Banana. Banana who? Knock knock. Stop knocking who is this anyway? Orange. Orange who? Orange you glad i stopped saying banana?

Not quite; it happened in French. The 'n' is still present in Spanish. The same thing happened to several other words, such as umpire and newt (the other way). In French, the 'n' was assimilated to the indefinite article "une". -phma

This is a common thing in English. I guess I should add it to the A, an article. An even weirder one in French was the transition from l'ejade to le jade. Ortolan88

OK, is the fruit named for the colour (as it says in the entry or the colour) or the colour named for the fruit (as stated in this article about the fruit)? And is there a good citation to link to about this? - Logotu 23:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No one ever answered the question, but the colour entry was changed to agree with this one that the fruit came first, so all seems to be good. - Logotu 01:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The color is named for the fruit. In Old English, the color was originally called "geoluhread" (Modern English: "yellowred"). When the fruit made its way to the English-speaking world, "orange" was probably used for a particular shade of yellowred, just as "lime" and "melon" are used for shades of green, "rose" a shade of red, or "violet" a shade of purple. The word "orange" obviously supplanted "yellowred" as a whole, but I haven't the slightest idea when this was. --Corvun 01:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the rind

is the entire rind edible, like an apple's? (i'd especially like to know since i just ate a whole orange, in the manner of eating an apple)

Yes, the rind is perfectly edible. As a matter of fact, you can put yeast on the rind, keep it somewhat damp (do not submerge it in water), and in a few weeks you'll have a hallucinogenic substance on your hands. Just scrape off the mold, grap something tasty to drink for a chaser (it will taste horrible), and you're ready for a citrus-trip. --Corvun 04:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Name the Parts

What are the proper names for the different parts of the peel? What is the proper name for the white stuff left on the orange after you peel it? The photos in the article are nice, but we need a good illustration too, with all the detailed component parts called out.

Segmentless oranges

My Argentinian friend claims that the oranges he eats in Argentina have no segments. I don't believe him. There's no such thing as an orange without segments, is there?

too many images!

I've been bold and gone ahead in restructuring the article somewhat (hopefully better!). But the big problem is that there's too many images, which severely distorts the rendering of the page, especially om monitors 1024 and less pixels wide. No offense meant to any of the photographers, but I've gone ahead and removed a few and shifted it all to the right. Maybe we could find a better solution to showcase all the photographs we have...? Dewet 19:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation and uses

The text mentions : "Orange cultivation is a major business and an important part of the economies of ... Romania". Now, I showed this to my friend, a Romanian, and he was very surprised to learn this. He maintains that Romania has a climate similar to North America and that it's strange that oranges would manage to grow in his home country. Does anyone know if we have a reference citing Romania as an orange grower? Does anyone have any proof for either sides? I'll leave it for now, until I find my answer. ----Xtanstic 02:05, 19 October 2005

2005 World Production Data Available

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=%3E862&Items=490&Elements=51&Years=2005&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=SUA&ItemTypes=Production.Crops.Primary&language=EN

Should replace 2004 in wiki. 4 new countries producing oranges this year.

'Orange' redirect

""Orange" redirects here. For other uses, see Orange (disambiguation)." This is no longer true, 'Orange' goes to the disambiguation page.

Disputed

Why is there a disputed tag on this page indicating that the accuracy of this entire article is being disputed? It refers readers to this talk page for more information, yet (until this comment), there does not appear to be any dispute. If nobody cares to discuss the dispute, the tag should be removed within a few days. I seriously doubt the entire article is in dispute (it reads well to me as-is), so probably only a portion of it should be tagged, and with a more specific tag. Most importantly, the dispute should be discussed here. --Willscrlt 09:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production of oranges by state

I was wondering what the statistics of orange production within the United States- state by state. I'm sure most of us are aware that Florida has top honors, but other states such as California, Arizona, and Texas also produce oranges. Has anyone seen these figures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buddmar (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unflattering Picture of a Sectioned Orange

I think this picture is unflattering if not disgusting. Who would want to eat an orange after seeing that picture? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it were inserted by somebody in the apple industry (known to be unscrupulous) or somebody with an extreme dislike of oranges. A picture that unflattering does not occur by mistake and I'm quite certain there is an agenda behind it. I know that this page is meant to be informative and not pro-orange, but that picture is treading into the dangerous territory of being anti-orange. I'm not saying that we should use the most flattering picture of a sectioned orange available on the 'net, but surely a compromise can be reached. I nominate that it be removed or changed in favor of a more neutral picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.60.98 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is clearly a far-malus conspiracy to drive down orange sales among the compulsive wikipedia browsing population. Please take whatever action you feel is necessary to restore the vital balance of presentation so that the prolitariate may once again rejuice. - JustinWick 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture is acceptable, and I think it is difficult for a picture to be neutral. Note that the same IP address also believes that oranges do not grow on trees WLU 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you truely grasp the extent to which apple fans will go to sabotage their competition. I hereby declare that all images of oranges on Wikipedia should be examined for NPOVness. 216.164.60.98, why don't you get on this ASAP? - JustinWick 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WLU - That is disingenuous and a complete misrepresentation of anything I've ever posted. Of course oranges grow on trees. I have a lot of knowledge of and experience with oranges. I simply made the point that there are those who remain unconvinced - and those people do exist. If you don't think that's worth noting, then fine, I can live with that. But that's not really what we're talking about right now. Anyhow, if I can find a more flattering picture do you really mind if I change it? JustinWick sees exactly what I am talking about (lol @ rejuice!). I am not about to accuse you of being the person who posted the offending picture or of being involved in the apple industry, but my antenna is up. Cheers!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.164.60.98 (talk • contribs) 04:09, January 24, 2007.

WLU, are you some kind of apple sympathizer? Why do you defend a picture that is clearly not in the best interests of our daily nutritional needs. The anon might not go so far as to accuse you of conspiracy, but it's clear to me that you are at the very least an apple sympathizer. Anon, can you take a better picture yourself? You seem to have a deep knowledge of oranges, and you at least live harmoniously with them in your life. WLU, go back to your cider press or whatever and let us fix this egregious crime against one of nature's most beautious botanical bounties. - JustinWick 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the power to you if you can find a better picture of an orange. The rest of your contributions are POV, unsourced and use weasel words. WLU

From personal experience, I find it extremely difficult and time consuming to remove all the remaining white bits without damaging the rest of the fruit. It's fairly sensitive. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are oranges we're talking about. As the anon mentioned, there are those that stand to profit (quite handsomely) by altering the public perception of the incredibly delicious and nutritious fruit. Just because something is difficult does not mean it is not worth it in the end. Any true Wikipedian knows that their first duty is to the truth - and in this case that is not unflattering pictures of oranges posted by those opposed to their greatness. - JustinWick 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the picture looks "unflattering" is not important. If you want to have a picture of a perfectly peeled orange, why don't you try creating a picture yourself? The new image that replaced the older one is redundant, we have enough images of a sliced orange, and an image of a peeled one is needed to show that an orange has sections. The most important thing is to be sure it conveys the information well, not how pretty the thing looks. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 01328, the old pic with the white bits is a better choice. It also provides an opening to talk about the white bits - I believe they've got a fair amount of nutritional value to them beyond the vitamin C already mentioned, I'll try to dig up some other references. I also find the 'apple conspiracy' accusations more than a little absurd. WLU 13:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cast my vote against the ugly picture. It's hideous. Wikipedia can do better than this. Also the new picture that I went to the trouble of finding, is sufficient to depict the inside of a navel orange which no other pic on the page does. Take a look at the other language wikipedias articles for Orange for some ideas of how to present an attractive and informative article. I got this pic from the Spanish wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange picture

Personally, I hadn't realized that the picture was worth reverting over, so lets discuss it. I'm for keeping the peeled orange picture on the page, for a couple reasons.

There are already 4 pictures with sliced oranges, and none with peeled oranges. I mostly peel my oranges when I eat them, so a peeled orange makes sense on the page.
The underdeveloped sections are easier to see as a separate set of lobes from the actual segments.
I really don't find the pericarp to be distasteful in any way. I eat the pericarp.
Since aesthetics are such a subjective thing, statements like 'I think the peeled/the cut picture is nicer' doesn't really add much weight to either side.
I hardly think that a single picture is going to alter the public perception of a piece of fruit; anyone who has eaten an orange realizes that there is pericarp.
I see no evidence of a pro-apple conspiracy on the page.
An apple is also a highly nutritious piece of fruit. Both articles have nutritional information on them, people can make their own decisions based on the info there.

What are other's thoughts on the subject? WLU 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be putting our personal bias into the article. I don't really care whether you believe there's some sort of apple conspiracy or not, but we have to decide which picture is the most informative, not the most pretty. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that makes sense. I think the pic of the peeled orange is more informative than the sliced one, and is more informative to those reading the page. No other shows the pericarp (which is mentioned in the article), no other shows a peeled orange, no other shows the 'twin fruit' at the bottom of the navel orange as unambiguously. I think the original picture (this diff) is better. WLU 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preference for picture

Since we can't agree on the picture and now both are gone like Solomon's baby, we may as well see if there is consensus one way or the other with both pictures visible here on the talkpage to indiate preference, reasons, etc.

Unpeeled

I like this one, it shows how the "twin" is inside of the peel - but I don't really feel that strongly either way, the other one certainly looks edible. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peeled

I prefer this one for several reasons:

There are already 4 pictures with sliced oranges, and none with peeled oranges. Since many people peel their oranges, at least one peeled orange makes sense on the page.
The underdeveloped sections of the navel orange are easier to see as a separate set of lobes from the actual segments. The 'twin fruit' is most unambiguous here, as it is separated from the body of the fruit.
The picture also clearly shows the separate sections of the orange, which no other picture shows.
The picture shows the pericarp, which none of the other pictures show.
The pericarp is also mentioned in the article, another reason to include a picture that shows the pericarp.
Statements regarding 'appearing' edible and inedible are subjective, it should be the more informative picture, not the most edible appearing one.

WLU 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the peeled one's better, since there are no other pictures of a peeled orange, and the twin is seen clearly here. I couldn't have said it any better than WLU. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has any objections to the pic, and no one is pushing for the other one, you think we can put it back on the page? WLU 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I went ahead and put it back up. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entymology

The discussion of the entymology is causing example-creep. There's now way too many examples of the word for orange in too many different languages. At minimum the section is too long and could be turned into a table. However, I'd be much happier if it could be trimmed down to just a couple examples at most. There is also a main article for Orange (word), and they might be better served over there. But WP:NOT indiscriminate. WLU 14:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dyed in the rind?

Are oranges dyed to either change or enhance their color before going to the market? The article didn't say.Jlujan69 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some program I saw on Food Network (most likely Alton Brown) mentioned that some/most oranges sold on the US shelves have their color altered. The two common ways are dyeing with a vegetable dye or treating the oranges with ethylene gas (to make oranges make their own coloring). There are numerous references to this on the internet (most refer to this as fact) Here's an example.

In some countries where the temperatures never cool off, oranges remain green, even when mature. It is the cool temperatures which promote the release of the orange pigments (carotenes)

Here's another.

Oranges are naturally variable in their color, especially early in the season. They may be dyed to a uniform orange color by using a vegetable dye. Oranges so treated are stamped ‘color added’. Oranges may be ripened in rooms with ethylene gas. This is a harmless procedure which augments the natural ethylene gas that is produced by most ripening fruit.

Fry-kun 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should include a mention, perhaps under "trivia" that oranges are naturally green. http://www.slate.com/id/2161806?nav=tap3

I'd put in the edit myself, but I'd probably garble up the page. 69.2.251.189 23:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout navel oranges onto their own page?

I think the biology and history of navel oranges is interesting enough to merit a separate page. There's even more that could be added, but it seems like it would be too much if it's left as a subsection of this page. Objections? --Mike Schiraldi 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough for a full page, though a separate section within the article is probably meritted. WLU 12:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Mike Schiraldi 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the description as to where on the navel orange the secondary mutation is located be any more convoluted? Would anyone object to simplifying it to being at the 'bottom' of the fruit?

I tried to make it a bit clearer, I'd prefer 'opposite the stem' to stay in, I think it's clearer. That being said, I'm not 100% certain my version is any better. WLU 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a big improvement. Thanks for chipping in. --Mike Schiraldi 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I exist to improve wikipedia, your praise is ambrosia to me :) Thanks. WLU 13:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of sweet oranges to Europe

From the Persian oranges section:

"Sweet oranges were brought to Europe in the 15th century from India by Portuguese traders..."

From the etymology section:

"...the sweet orange was brought from China to Europe during the 14th century by the Portuguese."

Which is right?

91.153.142.245 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's this bull about it being a hybrid?

A pomelo and a tengerine make a tangelo. Orange is not a hybrid.

Orange Festival

My friend and i are thinking about having an 'orange festival' You know, everyone wears orange, we have oranges, smoothies, juice, peel sculptures, etc. 1. What are your thoughts?

2. What would YOU expect at an ornage festival?

3. what other foods are good at such an orange festival?

4. How would you finance it?

5. where is a good place ( note that blenders need electricity )

6. How many ornages are needed per person?

7. When is a good time in the year for it?

8. Anything else?

Thank you! It will be a grand old time!

Avgjessop 04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)avgjessop[reply]

Inaccuracies

This is my first post on Wikipedia & therefore I would rather point out the problems & let someone else make the changes or argue against them.

Item 1. “Because the mutation left the fruit seedless and therefore sterile, the only means available to cultivate more of this new variety is to graft cuttings onto other varieties of citrus tree.” Not all Navel oranges are seedless as can be confirmed by checking the Web. In fact, I just finished eating one in a bag of Navels from Florida. That is what led me to this article.

Item 2. “Orange trees and fruit are susceptible to frost damage. Growers commonly use sprinklers to coat them with water when temperatures are expected to go below freezing. This practice protects the crops because the freezing of water absorbs heat energy, protecting the foliage as ice begins to form. The thin layer of water/ice also acts as a layer of insulation that protects the leaves from cold winds.” Unfortunately, this has the thermodynamics exactly backwards. When water freezes to ice heat is released. Think of the reverse process: It is obvious that ice absorbs heat when it melts.

Item 3. Ref. 6 is a very poor citation in my opinion. The question is poorly worded and the answerers playing as scientists give even more poorly worded explanations. Guaranteed to confuse anyone, including whoever wrote the sprinkling process.

NeffiKatt (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references

With respect to the the removal of Citrus descriptor publications in the Orange (fruit) reference section 3 January 2008, I regret the rational (see history) to remove them because "they don 't refer to the text".

First these publications are relevant for those people who want to read further on what has been written in the fruit and variety section. Secondly the existing three references in the Orange (fruit) article also don 't have a direct conection to the text. So either remove all references and/ or insert a new section with external links or further reading. Thanks.

Mvanzonneveld (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.144.167.16 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit

"Fruits of all members of the genus Citrus are considered berries because they have many seeds, are fleshy and soft, and derive from a single ovary." This may apply from a botanical point of view, in the plant scientific classification. A lay person will never consider an orange to be some kind of berry, I think. Maybe this should be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The orange is a berry in the sense that that's what "berry" means—the botanical meaning is the definitive meaning (we are talking about plants here). What more needs to be said? The average person doesn't consider an orange to be a berry simply because they don't know how a "berry" is defined. The article explains why it's considered a berry so that the lay person can understand its proper classification. And if the average person doesn't normally consider it a berry, then they don't need Wikipedia to tell them that. There's no value in confirming common misconceptions. It's the same as the avocado article calling the avocado a "fruit" despite most people not considering it one. You don't need a tack on a disclaimer when you use a term properly in its true sense; it should be the other way around.--Subversive Sound (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juice and other products

Candied orange peel
Zest (ingredient) -- Zest is the outer, colorful skin of citrus fruit, known botanically as the exocarp. It is often used to add strong flavor to foods, such as lemon meringue pie, sorbets and salads.

-69.87.203.15 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange peel

What are the nutritional aspects of orange peel? Is it high in fiber? Are there potential benefits from eating the inside of the peel? -69.87.203.15 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there seems to be a contradiction, in the Fruit section: "The white thread-like material, attached to the inside of the peel are called clemos. These have not been found to have any particular nutritional value.", and in the section Juice and Other Products: "The white part of the rind, called the pericarp or albedo and including the pith, is a source of pectin and has nearly the same amount of vitamin C as the flesh." Nearly the same amount of vitamin C would indicate to me that it does have particular nutritional value, unless they are talking about different parts of the orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.40.3 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation

I was disappointed to find no information on cultivation, or the primary growth seasons, or how many crops per year can be obtained, or yield levels per acre/hectare. MaxEnt (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus trees flower in the late winter and early spring. Normally there is one crop per year. If there is a late frost some trees will set it's regular crop and then a small second crop. Yields in properly maintained groves can approach 1000 boxes/acre. There are 90 #/box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G2Services (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Aspects

Cultural Aspects: as opposed to an apple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.165.148 (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

This statement needs citation: "The orange is a hybrid of ancient cultivated origin, possibly between pomelo (Citrus maxima) and tangerine (Citrus reticulata)." I've read about tangelos - tangerine/pomelo hybrid. However they differ from oranges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Here is a citation. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CISI3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.103.241 (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Output Figure

Surely this figure is inaccurate, at least for the US. Florida doesn't show up at all but the midwest/mid-atlantic states are significant orange producers?Bcostley (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the map. It shows the total production by each country. Each yellow dot represents 10% of the top producer's output. The five yellow dots mean that in total the US produces 50% of the output of the top producer (Brazil). William Avery (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes much more sense. Thanks! Bcostley (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not a good one. In Brazil the South is dotted, while the biggest producer is located in São Paulo, in the Southeast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.209.120 (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Name

According the USDA the correct scientific name is Citrus ×sinensis. This name reflects the fact that it is a hybrid plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.103.241 (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Poem

Is there a lemma on Orange tree, too? There are some bautiful poems to add: [1], see poetry.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.122 (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navel orange

It would be nice if this section were to explain why anyone would go to the trouble of taking cuttings of a mutant tree whose sterile fruit featured a underdeveloped conjoined twin. Does the twin taste really good or what? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 23:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many types of navel oranges. It would be nice to have a list or maybe a whole new article on navels.68.62.133.69 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph states that all navel oranges are essentially fruit of the same "over-a-century-old tree". That's interesting, but is it not rather dated now? - as if the information were taken from a 1950s textbook. The mutation was discovered in 1820. That's 190 years ago. I think the statement should be changed to reflect this (e.g. nearly two hundred year-old tree). Orphan Seasun (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it for you since the article is semi-protected. If you as a not auto-confirmed user would like to change anything in the future, to any semi-protected article, not just this one, you may use the {{editsemiprotected}} template and someone will come to make the edit for you. Any user older than 4 days, and with 10 or more edits is auto-confirmed, and will not need to go through this hassle. jonkerz ♠ 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Straight Dope, which usually is trustworthy ( http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/316/does-unsweetened-oj-actually-have-sugar-in-it ), the common navel orange Its existence is recorded at least as far back as the 17th century - can anyone confirm? 190.113.141.223 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

The lead does not summarize the article below. There are few inline references. The article has a gallery section, which I thought was generally outlawed three years ago. This allowed its downgrade to C class, though it could have been dropped to Start due to the lead problems. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Tree

Could we get a picture of an orange tree here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.173.50 (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added one, thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange output in 2005 Image

I don't know who made the image but the reference is no longer valid and it also show production in the United States in the northeast. That is entirely inaccurate. Texas, Arizona, California and Florida are the major producers in the US. http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/francais/orange/Doc/citrus.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.109.172 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, perhaps the worst map I've ever seen on wikipedia. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the second discussion started on this map. Unless somebody can argue for this, I'm deleting. --Bridgecross (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerine

The intro paragraph speculates that the orange may have derived from a hybrid of the pomelo and the tangerine. However, the wording of the tangerine article gives the impression that the tangerine is a type of orange—specifically, a type of mandarin orange. So one of these two claims is obviously wrong, or they are using different definitions of term "orange" or "tangerine". I'm leaning towards the opinion that this article is incorrect and the term "orange" includes mandarin oranges and, therefore, also tangerines. Can anyone verify this or shed light on the matter?--Subversive Sound (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarins aren't related to oranges. It's a common misconception. They look fine. The first sentence of this article specifies the sweet orange, while the tangerine article specifies the mandarin, and they have their distinct scientific names alongside them. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imazalil treatment (Peel not for human consumption warning)

On almost every package of oranges and other citrus fruits available in my country there is a warning 'Peel is not for human consumption' (my translation into english). I researched this subject and found that citrus fruits (lemon, grapefruits, oranges etc.) are treated in Imazalil solution by spraying or submerging for a short time in order to prevent spoiling the fruit. Imazalil is fungicide, that is, type of pesticide that is poisonous for humans. Why there is no mention of this in the article? There are regulations in EU about maximum residue of Imazalil in the peel of the fruit, but not all countries in the world have adopted those limits, although they do control/test imported fruits for this chemical.

Imazalil effectiveness

Pesticides residue evaluation article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.52.169 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 91.86.159.134, 28 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Sweet oranges were brought from China by the Portuguese, not from India. Please correct this mistake. Wikipedia is unfortunately full of mistakes, because most of the people writing the articles lack knowledge, specially when dealing with historical matters. Dulce Rodrigues www.dulcerodrigues.info

91.86.159.134 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The line you are talking about states that they were brought from "China or India". If you can provide a reliable source that indicates they only came from India and not China it can be changed. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 22:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (Italian denomination of Orange)

The article reads: [Also in South Italian dialects (Neapolitan), orange is named portogallo or purtualle, literally "the Portuguese one".] There are four small flaws in the sentence:

0 - the word "Neapolitan" next to South Italian dialects suggests to me that such dialects are known as Neapolitan, which is not true (in fact some dialects in S. Italy are completely different from Neapolitan and result as mutually unintelligible);

1 - the word "portogallo" (with variations) is used also in central and northern dialects, e.g. Piedmont "portugaj", Bergamo "portügàl", Abruzzo (I speak Abruzzese dialect) "purt'al";

2 - the word is also accepted in Italian language, even if not common (this is a trusted dictionary referring to the word as of regional origin, but it still reports it);

3 - the literally meaning is "Portogallo"="Portugal", that is the country rather than its denonym (which would be "portoghese")

I'm not writing any substitute sentence as you may decide to put as many information you want. The source is myself (most of those facts are known to any average learned Italian) and it.wikipedia.org for the word in use in Bergamo.

EDIT: I also noticed that the previous request is substantially right: there is a misunderstanding as Yarnalgo is referring to the paragraph "Etimology", while Dulce R. is referring to the paragraph "Persian orange", where is says in fact that the orange has been introduced from India, at variance with what the article reads in the previous paragraph.

Cheers, astabada Astabada (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Astabada, 12 July 2010

The word is still in use in the Italian portogallo^[1], literally "Portugal", but the term arancia is preferred. However it is in use in most Italian dialects, from the North (Piedmont, përtugal^[2]) to the South (Neapolitan, pertegàll^[3]).

Astabada (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And, by the way, now you're an autocomfirmed user, so you can edit this article without having to rely on other people. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Vewcaere, 25 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The rind is leathery and the segments, or "liths," are filled with pulp vesicles.

Vewcaere (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymous scientific names

The listed synonyms have incorrect authorities. "Citrus aurantium Risso" is wrong. It should be "Citrus aurantium L." (possibly with a hybrid x preceding the species; Citrus taxonomy is such a mess I'm not sure if aurantium is a hybrid or not). "Citrus aurantium L. var. dulcis L." should be "Citrus aurantium L. var. dulcis Hayne". Again, possibly/probably with a hybrid marker, and the "L." would be optional. See http://www.tropicos.org/NameSearch.aspx?name=citrus&commonname= or www.ipni.org.22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk)

Persian Orange??

The passage on "Persian orange" actually describes the sweet "Indian orange" popularized in Europe by the Portuguese. In fact, one of the names for the popular orange in Iran refers to Portuguese origins. Someone should correct the title of this section. User:apalaria comment added Feb 11, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.46.94.35 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meesala, ken, meesala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.239.150 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skin care?

The section on skincare is highly questionable. It makes claims for oranges and antioxidants in general which are not recognised by mainstream science, fails to cite many sources, and the only source it does state has been quoted almost directly in the article. The cited source suffers many of the same problems as the section in the article.

Much of what's said here is the sort of pseudoscience constantly promulgated in skincare product advertising and the section should be removed, or just possibly reworked to represent the use of citrus fruit in skincare - which is a minefield of careful wording and vague claims in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.221.127 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This is just concealed advertisement, and the source cannot be considered reliable. The section will therefore be deleted. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I have tagged "Its name originates from the colour of its skin" as requiring a citation, since this contradicts the article to which it links, Orange (colour) states "The colour is named after the orange fruit". Clearly one or other has to be wrong, so it would be good if it could be cited, or cited to be the contrary. Vwozone (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com pretty much says the word origins are unknown. [2] WLU (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has conflicting information. In the first paragraph it says oranges were named for the colour of their skin, where later on it states that the word 'orange' comes from the fruit. Bar fly high (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix this based on reference.com. Also, I moved your comment to the bottom of the page - the discussion you had linked to was almost 3 years old, while this is more current. WLU (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3] (# 9 from the References list), the Sanskrit name possibly comes from the Dravidian words for fragrant, bitter orange, or sweet orange. As such, the wording in the article stating this point should be worded a little more precisely, and thus, "The Sanskrit word is in turn lent itself as the Dravidian root" should be changed to "The Sanskrit word is in turn lent itself from the Dravidian root". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echeran (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page is semi-protect I cannot edit it so I will post an obvious mistake here so that hopefully someone will change it. Under the heading etymology, the following has been written:

"The Sanskrit word is in turn lent itself as the Dravidian root for 'fragrant'"

"...is in turn lent itself as the" is incorrect usage of the English language. That should be written instead as:

"The Sanskrit word could possibly have its roots in the Dravidian words for 'fragrant', 'bitter orange', or 'sweet orange'.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/orange Origin: Middle English, from Old French pume orenge, translation and alteration (influenced by Orenge, Orange, a town in France) of Old Italian melarancio : mela, fruit + arancio, orange tree (alteration of Arabic nāranj, from Persian nārang, from Sanskrit nāraṅgaḥ, possibly of Dravidian origin).

So it's not confirm that orange is derived from Sanksrit (Arun1paladin (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Arun1paladin)[reply]

Table of top producers in 2005

The table does not match the reference given, some countries' productions in the table are not those in the source, not for national pride one hopes. Failing resolution the table shall be deleted.--SilasW (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table is correct and I have just updated it and checked it, using the FAOSTAT site. http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx Apollo (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading Article

Can I find a couple of people who will join with me to upgrade this article? It is really kind of a mess and is missing volumes of available information. Getting the taxonomy of oranges (mandarins, tangerines, satsumas) straightened out is going to be difficult and we really don't need people stepping in and making reversions, etc., without some agreement among people who are willing to do the work.

I have a natural interest in oranges, as I grew up in an orange grove. I started to do some work on this page several years ago. I started by adding sections on valencias and temple oranges, which took a number of hours, only to find that some jerk had reverted them because it was "too US centric". I have better things to do than fight with some guy who erases my work about US orange varieties instead of putting them in a proper category or adding varieties from other countries!

Anyway I'd really like to find a couple of folks who would like to make this a great article. It obviously has attracted a lot of nonsense and negative contributions in the past, and I suspect others are also discouraged from adding to it. Apollo (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British vs. American spelling

I've reverted all the "color->colour" and "flavor->flavour" changes per WP:TIES, since production of the fruit is overwhelmingly American within the English speaking world. I'd also add that the US spelling is consistent with the Portuguese. Apollo (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet convinced there is a "strong" case for WP:TIES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sugars" is too general.

Which sugars are contained in oranges and in what proportions? Please add. -- 77.187.155.118 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 217.14.8.23, 24 July 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

==Rhymes with==

Sporange (a sac where spores are made)
Blorenge (a mountain in Wales)

^[4]
217.14.8.23 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is trivia which is discouraged.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 120.151.191.163, 4 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On the etymology section it is considered 'Puerto Rican' as a language. This is not correct; the language spoken in that country is Spanish as are the examples given in the article.

120.151.191.163 (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done; This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Hence, I'm not even sure which part you mean. Please quote the line/section, and re-submit the request. Chzz ► 20:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this into the main article on Oranges to an existing section or appropriately named new section, the peel of an orange should not be overlooked in a comprehensive encyclopedia entry on this magnificent fruit; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzbz33 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although not as juicy or delicious as they moist inside of an Orange, the peel has been known to be frequently consumed, particularly in environments where there is scarcity of resources and where maximum nutritional value must be derived and minimal waste generated, for example, on Submarines. The peel of an orange can have additional health benefits, such as increased vitamin C and fiber, however it should be noted that one should consider only consuming the peel of oranges of organic origin where chemical pesticides or herbicides have been prevented from invading the peel.'

http://www.livestrong.com/article/401623-is-it-healthy-to-eat-orange-peels/

Bzbz33 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Seems reasonable to me, I'll add it now. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navels are not necessarily seedless

   http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/6/246.extract 
   : Oxford Journals 
   Life Sciences 
   Journal of Heredity 
   Volume9, Issue6 
   Pp. 246-249. 
   Washington navels will produce seeds if "dusted" with valencia pollen.

It is reasonable to assume that other navels will be similarly liable to have a few seeds.. So, "seedless orange with seeds" is not fully self-contradictory. Some suppliers list the Navel varieties as "usually seedless" Erasmid (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) an orange is also a bad for people with no enamel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella desselle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the sterile nature of the navel oranges is highly emphasised in a whole paragraph (everything resulting from grafting etc.)... until the cara cara navel is presented as a cross between two navels. This contradiction should be researched and resolved. RFST (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Vesicles

I would like to see that Juice vesicles be added to the terminology for orange.

-Yoshimagick (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly would you like it added, and what wording do you propose? (For the record, Juice vesicles—an unsourced stub—suggests the term is synonymous with "pulp".) Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Flower Water

It should also be mentioned that Orange Flower Water is an essential component of the classic New Orleans Ramos Gin Fizz Cocktail. It is a very nutritious fruit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinebassist88 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with this article. Orange Flower Water comes from Bitter Orange.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word delicious

I think that there's quite a bit of opinionated statements in this article, regarding the taste of the orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.143.47 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try fixing it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 7th Jan 2011

According to QI, Ripe oranges may be green and the colour has nothing to do with ripeness.

"...because oranges are a subtropical, not tropical fruit. The colour of an orange depends on where it grows. In more temperate climes, its green skin turns orange when the weather cools; but in countries where it’s always hot, the chlorophyll is preserved and the fruit stays green." More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/qi/8345477/QI-Quite-interesting-facts-about-orange.html

I suggest revising the degreening section to clarify that the orange colour is neither an indicator of ripeness nor quality, only how much ethylene the manufacturer has used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.5.27 (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now:

Please propose the actual wording you'd like to see used in the section. Be careful not to go beyond what the source says (e.g., it doesn't mention ethylene). Rivertorch (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--117.198.153.248 (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)--117.198.153.248 (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)--117.198.153.248 (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 03 Dec 2012

One of the references in this article (currently number 78) reads Katzer, Gernot (1999-02-03). "Orange (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck)". University of Graz. Retrieved 2009-10-16. ?self-published source?

Yes, I am the author of that linked source. No, I have not entered the reference into the article. Yes, I would like to change the link, as the site had to move from its previous university server to a new domain. The new URL is http://gernot-katzers-spice-pages.com/engl/Citr_sin.html

Thank you for your cooperation. 180.211.188.228 (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been resolved.

Regards, --CocoLacoste talk 09:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking request from 15 April 2013

According to the orange production table which referred to the FAO's data on 2010, I cross-checked with the FAO's website and noticed some mismatching data.

The data from the website showed that the top-three orange producers in 2010 are Spain, South Africa and The United States of America, which are contrary to the data from the Wiki's article.

Thank you so much Moonnykiss (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 June 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change the versus "The origin of the term orange is presumably the Sanskrit word for "orange tree" (नारङगम्, nāraṅga),[9] whose form has changed over time, after passing through numerous intermediate languages" to "Origin of the word "Orange" is not Sanskrit, but it is from the Tamil word "நரந்தம், or 'narantam'"" ^[5] 111.93.119.238 (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The Collins reference that's cited is reliable, and it's backed up by AHD, whose entry gives a more thorough explanation of the word's history. Both sources do mention the possibility of Dravidian (e.g., Tamil) origins, but neither states it as a certainty. The source you're citing appeas to be a blog. Rivertorch (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RM

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange (fruit) → Orange
Orange → Orange (disambiguation)

– I think we have a primary topic here. Check out the grok.se pageviews ... 73074 for Orange (fruit), versus just 28827 for Orange (colour). There are some other uses but nothing that rises even to the level of the colo(u)r. We have ten THOUSAND views a month of the disambiguation page. Lots of people arriving here instead of the article they want. It's probably the fruit, according to our pageview statistics. (Keep in mind that we'd of course keep the hatnote on top of the fruit page that takes readers directly to the colour article, providing minimal inconvenience.) Red Slash 04:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on grounds of "long-term significance". IMO, both are equally, elementary, core, vital subjects that everybody learns since practically as toddlers (or even early), and I do not feel that such recentism and page views with only a difference of under 50,000 views is enough to offset that (similar to how I feel with the mercury articles). If it were over a million difference, I might have a different opinion but not under 50,000. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly oppose. The numbers Red Slash cites for fruit versus colour are not all that far apart, not different enough to convince me that people typing orange are more likely to mean the fruit than anything else. For what it's worth, I often police incoming links to the DAB page, and those most often seem to mean the colour or the French telecomm. I don't take that to mean, however, that either of those is the primary topic. They just happen to be things that novice editors have frequent occasion to mention. Cnilep (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am not a fan of using page reads to justify a move. They are better used to show why a page should not be moved. Also the case presented makes it look like we only have two pages about something called orange and that is simply false. There are too many pages that use the name to say that one meets the requirements to be the primary topic. For me the color is clearly a contender and between that on the fruit there probably is not a primary topic. Add in everything else, and the current arrangement is really the right choice. Also the primary move here is of the dab page so that should have been the primary nomination so that we have a more balanced discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per WP:CRITERIA 1 & 3. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think the fruit is significant enough to warrant primary usage. As can be seen on the disambig page, the word can also refer to the colour of the fruit, or a medieval place and/or family name. JIP | Talk 10:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds similar to those expressed by Vegaswikian. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose it seems confusion on getting these articles without issues on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Potential Health Risks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.6.2 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flavonoids in the rind, core, or stem?

Where in an Orange is the greatest amount of flavonoid located? Is it found mostly in the white core, rind, stem, or meat (flesh)? It was my understanding that the whitish core was where most of the flavonoids were found. I was of the understanding that flavonoids are found mostly in the white parts of the orange. That is, just under the skin. Or is it distributed equally through the fruit of the orange? Does a ripe orange have more flavonoids than one that is not ripe? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are focused here on improving the Wikipedia article on orange (fruit), rather than discussing the fruit. You may want to look at Web sites focused on nutrition, and/or vitamins for this type of information. Also, you may want to read this. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information lacking

Varieties

Other varieties of common oranges: long list, but not even a brief description of some of the varieties. Just where they come from or are cultivated.

History: why is Chinese statement made when there is ZERO facts to support this claim. It is a complete fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.216.24 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Chinese origin is fairly well-documented, though I don't have my copy of Oranges by John McPhee handy right now. Reify-tech (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlin: the book used for referencing (Webber, Herbert John, rev Walter Reuther and Harry W. Lawton, Willard Hodgson (1967–1989) [1943]. The Citrus Industry, Horticultural Varieties of Citrus [4]) is from 1989. Out-of-date info, perhaps? It is not out of date as to the origins of the Hamlin variety, as that has not changed.

Scope: Mainly mentions of US and Brazil cultivars. What about the rest of the world? The US and Brazil produce +90% of the world's commercial orange juice, and so most knowledge databases relate to production in Brazil and Florida. Varieties in California, Mexico and other states in Central America mirror those of Brazil and Florida.

I'm no expert, just a humble copy-editor. --Cocolacoste (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional value

I've just come across this FAO page about the nutritional and health benefits of citrus fruits ([5]). It could be useful for expanding this section. --CocoLacoste talk 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oranges by John McPhee

This book is a well-written, interesting treatment of many aspects of the fruit. Wikipedia says that John McPhee is "an American writer, widely considered one of the pioneers of creative nonfiction". He is widely respected for his engaging writing style, while still thoroughly researching his subjects. The book, written in 1967, is still a classic though a few things likely have changed since then. It is noteworthy enough that I may dig up some reviews and add a brief mention of it to the article. Reify-tech (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Orange"

The usage and topic of "Orange" is under discussion, see Talk:Orange (word) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error?

Mandarin orange (Citrus reticulata) is an original species of citrus, and is the proginator of the common orange.

Shouldn't that be progenitor?

Fixed Yes, good catch. Fixed now. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RM

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved; early close per WP:SNOW (I would add that "oranges" could also refer to the many shades of orange). bd2412 T 18:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orange (fruit) → Oranges – Here's my question. Can we use plurals in an attempt to avoid parentheses, as per WP:D's advice to use natural disambiguation?

I know that in general, we avoid using plural titles. (I have either written or rewritten most of the guideline on plural titles, WP:PLURAL. I know the rules.) But I can't help but think--wouldn't this be a nice, convenient and natural way to avoid having the parenthetical disambiguator in the title? (Obviously, oranges already redirects here.) Couldn't we change the rule?

I know this is currently not something we have done at Wikipedia, but I wanted to hear from y'all--is this a good idea? Should we put articles at plural titles to avoid having to disambiguate them unnecessarily?

Thanks for your time and consideration. Red Slash 22:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just from a quick look Apple, Grape, etc. are all singular. The only reason for the parentheses here is because orange (colour) is too significant and orange is a disambiguation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is wrong in so many ways. The first being that plural wikilinks are formed on Wikipedia by typing and linking the SINGULAR form and then adding the "s" next to the wikilink code. Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Curiously, when people talk about apples and oranges its often in the context of talking about difference and distinction. Britannica presents apple (fruit and tree) and orange (fruit)

However they do come in varieties. The categories are: Category:Oranges and Category:Orange cultivars Greg Kaye 02:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'd rather not establish such precedence of trying to avoid a parenthetical disambiguation by changing it to a title that does not comply with another article title rule or guideline like WP:PLURAL. That just seems to be moving the problem to a different rule. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate what you're going for, but this is a bit like using non-common middle names to disambiguate. WP:NATURAL is great, but it usually needs to be subordinate to other naming conventions. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with ☾Loriendrew☽, the disambiguation is required due to orange (colour). Zarcadia (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The common usage of "orange" as a color should not cause a bizarre change in the article name that will confuse readers more than the current situation. Reify-tech (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the fruit is not generally referred in the plural sense.--70.27.228.231 (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Well...

I guess that's settled! Thanks, all! Red Slash 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC) One thing...there is a rootkit called Sweet Orange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.132.29 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the first image, which the caption is "Oranges in Florida". First, that image seems like it was randomly thrown there. Second, no one cares where the oranges are from. Literally, that picture could be of any orange tree in the world.

Huritisho (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'. I literally cannot come up with a better picture, even an idea. And it shouldn't be of a tree. It's not about the tree, it's about the fruit. Krett12 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following file

[[File:Navel_orange_protrusion.png|thumb|right|caption=In this navel orange, the twinned second fruit can clearly be seen conjoined at the base of the orange.]]

link to image

to Orange (fruit)#Varieties#Navel oranges underneath File:Navel_orange_sectioned.jpg but before File:Caracaraorange.png. The image clearly shows the protrusion of a navel orange that is a distinctive feature of this type of orange and is crucial to readers' understanding of the differences between different types of orange. RedGreenYellowBlue (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for your contribution. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Trovita Orange, I have one in my yard and it performs amazing here in the desert. It is smaller than a navel, thin skinned, and seedy but has amazing flavor and is perfect for juicing. It is believed to have come from a Washington Navel here in the Rubidoux Tract... Thank you, Leif Nelson 66.215.229.170 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There is no article about that type of orange. Please provide sources about it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orange (fruit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CISI3
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/horticulture/citrus/2004%20Citrus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find updates

I have looked for new information for the 3 'as of' tags in the top section, but I couldn't find anything reliable. Is there a different tag that I should put in place to indicate this? Leschnei (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Section to edit

In Europe, citrus fruits—among them the bitter orange, introduced to Italy by the crusaders in the 11th century—were grown widely in the south for medicinal purposes,[5] but the sweet orange was unknown until the late 15th century or the beginnings of the 16th century, when Italian and Portuguese merchants brought orange trees into the Mediterranean area.[5] Shortly afterward, the sweet orange quickly was adopted as an edible fruit. It also was considered a luxury item and wealthy people grew oranges in private conservatories, called orangeries. By 1646, the sweet orange was well known throughout Europe.[5]

Change to

In Europe, the Moors introduced the orange to Spain which was known as Al-Andalus, modern Andalucia, with large scale cultivation starting in the 10th century as evidenced by complex irrigation techniques specifically adapted to support orange orchards.^[6]^[7]. Citrus fruits—among them the bitter orange, introduced to Italy by the crusaders in the 11th century—were grown widely in the south for medicinal purposes,[5] but the sweet orange was unknown until the late 15th century or the beginnings of the 16th century, when Italian and Portuguese merchants brought orange trees into the Mediterranean area.[5] Shortly afterward, the sweet orange quickly was adopted as an edible fruit. It also was considered a luxury item and wealthy people grew oranges in private conservatories, called orangeries. By 1646, the sweet orange was well known throughout Europe.[5]

Jadcooper (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2016

References

^ http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/it/dizionario/it/cerca?q=portogallo&commit=%C2%A0
^ http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus_sinensis
^ http://nap.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perteg%C3%A0ll
^ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/t22.html
^ http://www.languagehat.com/archives/004398.php
^ TRILLO SAN JOSE, CARMEN (2004). AGUA Y PAISAJE EN GRANADA: UNA HERENCIA DE AL-ANDALUS. DIP. PROV. DE GRANADA. ISBN 9788478073528.
^ Trillo San José, Carmen. "Water and landscape in Granada". Universidad de Granada.

It appears you are auto-confirmed already, so you can be bold and make the edit yourself. Consider WP:BRD if need be. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highlight the cultivars please

Orange cultivars in See also section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of citrus fruits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of culinary fruits varieties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added to the See also section, except Category:Orange cultivars which is a category, not an article. General Ization ^Talk 02:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2016

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

fresh avacado

121.131.24.1 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin names don't take an article

Please remove 'the' from the latin names here. You have 'The Citrus x sinensis' in at least one place. This is incorrect. Names of specific things, as opposed to the general names for the types of things, do not take articles. You may see 'the dog', but his name is Rex, not 'the Rex'. The same applies to plants. The plant under discussion here is 'the orange', but its name is 'Citrus x sinensis'. Sorry I don't have an account, I don't actively write on Wikipedia, but as a botanist these things jump out at me! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:5C9F:5465:E42:659C (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit which I think addresses your concern. I didn't see any other occurrence. You have to consider context for that one occurrence since it is considering cultivars, subcultivars, hybrids, etc. as categories of the main species. Also, do you have a reference for occluding articles from preceding a scientific name? In what way would it be wrong in this sentence: "There are differences between the Paracheirodon innesi and the Paracheirodon axelrodi which are visible in the amount of red which continues along the full length of the latter." I believe that would be acceptable usage.

You may want to consider getting an account as you might enjoy WikiProject Plants.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Color

Ripe oranges are only orange after they got cold, cf. this helpful article. In countries where it does not get cold, they remain green and only turn yellow/brown when they rot. Degreening harms the quality and is only done because consumers in countries where oranges are bought but not produced think that green oranges are not ripe. An explanation of this with a photo of a ripe green orange would be helpful. Galant Khan (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Orange (fruit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citrusgenomedb.org/organisms
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205061009/http://websites.lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html to http://websites.lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcapua.com/hmcapua/cropmarketfr.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs123
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5050382
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ars-grin.gov/ars/SoAtlantic/fp/hb/bowman/citrus.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fshs.org/Meetings/2007/FSHS_2007_abstracts.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fshs.org/Meetings/2007/FSHS_2007_abstracts.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fshs.org/Meetings/2007/FSHS_2007_abstracts.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=%2FDOCREP%2F003%2FX6732E%2Fx6732e02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orange (fruit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Orange (fruit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navels sterile

The article claims that navel oranges are sterile, and created only by cutting and grafting. But then it says that the cara cara navel is believed to have originated as a cross between the Washington navel and the Brazilian Bahia navel. Are THOSE navels not sterile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.204.139 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish is not an Indo-European language

Someone who can edit this article, please correct it. (Under the section on the name of the fruit in various languages, it incorrectly includes Turkish in the Indo-European section.) 31.50.103.97 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2018: Mosaic from Pompeii in the National Archaeological Museum of Naples.

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article states that oranges were introduced to Europe by moors yet this mosaic is a thousand years earlier. Please add:

Note the orange in the bottom left of this remarkable mosaic said to be from ancient Capua but currently in the Pompeii area of the Neapolitan archaeological museum:

https://i1.wp.com/thegreatcat.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/1st-3rdCAD-Birds-drinking-from-a-bird-bath.-Mosaic-1st-CE-from-Pompeii-ItalyMuseoArcheologicoNazionaleNaples..jpg?ssl=1 Mozdougren (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mozdougren. To change or add information to the article, you need to provide a link to a reliable source of textual information. Softlavender (talk)

Navel orange picture possibly wrong

The photograph "Navel_orange_sectioned.jpg", supposedly depicting a navel orange cut in half, looks very much like a mandarin orange, not a navel orange. Google-image both terms and compare. Seems to me like the original uploader was mistaken. Image link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Orange_(fruit)#/media/File:Navel_orange_sectioned.jpg . Ericobnn (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ericobnn, do mandarin oranges have a navel like that, as shown in the picture? Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender the protuberance on the "orange" on the right is just a malformation that can happen with tangerines. The sections of oranges (and navel oranges, judging from the google images) are not segmented in slices like those in the picture. You cannot easily tear individual sections of oranges with your hand like you can tangerines. Ericobnn (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed both images as I tend to agree with you. Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of chinese origin

The article goes on to explain that In Europe, the Moors introduced the orange to Spain (but, from where?) It fails to mention where the oranges came from when they were introduced to Spain.

- but the sweet orange was unknown until the late 15th century or the beginnings of the 16th century, when Italian and Portuguese merchants brought orange trees into the Mediterranean area.**

Again, where from? --159.100.84.247 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In chapter "Etymology", please change "...(apelsin) and Norwegian appelsin.[33] A similar case is..." to "...(apelsin), Norwegian appelsin and Finnish (although not an Indo-European language) appelsiini.[33] A similar case is...". 91.155.113.58 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should include a link to the orange colour or a disambiguation that links to it

Not sure how to format or word it myself, may come back to include it later, just a note of recommendation. When searching in Google, this page seems to be prioritized over the one regarding colour. It may be useful for those searching for the colour in specific rather than the fruit to be linked to that article near the top of this article, saves them from having to manually search for it. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --SchizoidNightmares (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2018/03/GettyImages-122320983-6429f67.jpg This image, of a mosaic from the ruined city of Pompei, is in the Italian national archeological museum in Naples. In the bottom left corner is depicted an orange, with fresh foliage, suggesting these were available in Europe before the city's destruction in A.D. 79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozgren (talk • contribs) 12:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how many calories in an orange?

the article should mention calories for different types of oranges and orange products, such as juice or marmalade 2A00:23C5:C2A1:9200:8D0C:79D5:B69E:273F (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Cara Orange inconsistency

This page says that Cara Cara Navels are "... believed that they have originated as a cross between the Washington navel and the Brazilian Bahia navel,[56] and they were discovered at the Hacienda Cara Cara in Valencia, Venezuela, in 1976.[57]"

This is different to the Cara Cara page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cara_cara_navel ) which says they "believed to have developed as a spontaneous bud mutation on a Washington navel orange tree.[1][2][3][4]".

Since these varieties are seedless, I can't see how it can be a cross between a Bahia and Washington, the entry for Navels also makes it clear that as a seedless variety they are only grown from cuttings. Seems likely therefore that the Washington-Bahia story has to be false? I'm not an expert on citrus, but I am sure that there is a problem here somewhere, just through logic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.68.2 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

——— I second the above remark -- especially since the Bahia and Washington navels are the same tree. I think a good source for this is https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/citrus/washington.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.22.204 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlin orange

I can’t seem to get a usable URL link for this subsection. BiliousBob (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)There is one in the bibliography now.[reply]

History section is excessively Eurocentric

The article currently says the first mention of the "sweet orange" is in China in 341 BC. The next chronological event in the history is that Italian & Portuguese traders brought orange trees to the Mediterranean in the 1500s. Where did the Italians or Portuguese get the oranges from? India? Myanamar? China? When did oranges spread from their point of origin to broader distribution in Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8280:C8B0:ECC6:B132:F997:14A (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first photo notes a "peeled segment", and shows it without the rind. This matches the normal understanding of a peeled orange, and follows my logic for the correction noted above. BrainyWoolf (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It looks like those oranges have been peeled mechanically, so most of the rind is off as well. Also, every time I try to peel an orange I end up with a layer of white on the inside, even after removing the rind itself. We'd be getting in too deep for an image caption to explain that there is a membrane under the rind, but before the other membrane around each segment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Link the word "species" Bucket4458 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Common term, no need to link. See WP:OVERLINKING - FlightTime (open channel) 04:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Spanish national football team" = "Spain national football team" (per https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Assessment#Phrasing_of_national_team_names) 2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Orange (fruit). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Lightoil (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Oranges -_whole-halved-segment.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 17, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-04-17. 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) 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The orange is a fruit of various citrus species in the family Rutaceae, primarily the cultivar Citrus × sinensis, also known as the sweet orange to distinguish it from C. × aurantium, the bitter orange. The sweet orange is a hybrid between the pomelo (C. maxima) and the mandarin (C. reticulata), with the pomelo being the chloroplast genome and maternal line. The orange originated in a region encompassing south China, northeast India, and Myanmar, and the earliest mention of the sweet orange found in Chinese literature dates from 314 BC. The sweet orange reproduces asexually (apomixis through nucellar embryony); varieties of sweet orange arise through mutations. The whole genome has been sequenced. This photograph, depicting a whole orange, a halved orange, and a peeled orange segment, was focus-stacked from eleven images.

Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

Recently featured:

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

This edit request to Orange (fruit) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description for the second photo "Oranges after peeling the skins" appears to be incorrect. This photo shows an orange where only the zest has been removed. "Peeling" citrus fruit generally refers to removing the entire rind, not just the zest. ("The thick bitter rind is usually discarded", per this same article.)

Reproduction is confusing

Suggest the line "The sweet orange reproduces asexually (apomixis through nucellar embryony); varieties of sweet orange arise through mutations" in the lede be deleted, as it is directly contradicted by the section "propagation" in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:A8C7:6023:7DB4:25BA (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orange and mosambi defence

Defence 2402:8100:3005:24D8:4DD2:FC15:9897:80E8 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference?

The article lists Orange Rind and Orange Peel separately, but there seems to be little if any difference between the two and most people use the terms interchangably. If there is a difference, it should be explained in the article. If there isn't any practical difference, the two paragraphs should be combined to avoid confusion. (If combined, both terms should be mentioned in the title.) JDZeff (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rind is the Old High German for an outer layer of a part of a plant, while peel is of Latin origin for the action of removing the skin and the name for the removed item. The usage of "peel" is far more extended. The "rind" seems more accurate. One could also use "shell" or "skin". I find that using a uniform term throughout the text is good for it's readability. Any one would be good, but there should be one only. Alkis0 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles proposal

As the list of Navels and Valencias is quite long i suggest leaving only a summary here and opening two detailed additional articles, "Valencia orange" and "Navel orange", using the content of the present. How do you find the idea? Alkis0 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts in lead not in article

There's a few items found in the lead that don't occur in the article:

"As of 1987, orange trees were found to be the most often cultivated fruit tree in the world."
- Removed.
"Orange trees are widely grown in tropical and subtropical climates for their sweet fruit." the words "tropical" and "subtropical" do not appear in the article text.
- Removed the adjectives.
"Oranges have featured in human culture since medieval times." word "medieval" does not appear in article text. Start sentence of "In human culture" says "Oranges have featured in human culture since ancient times." Esculenta (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited.

Of interest: orange peels could improve heart health

This does not meet WP:MEDRS because it is a single study. Once it does appear in a Systematic review it can be mentioned in the article.

"New Research Reveals That Adding Orange Peels to Your Diet Could Improve Heart Health". SciTechDaily. 2024-06-03. Retrieved 2024-06-04.
Lee, Hana; et al. (2024-04-10). "Discovery of a Novel Bioactive Compound in Orange Peel Polar Fraction on the Inhibition of Trimethylamine and Trimethylamine N -Oxide through Metabolomics Approaches and In Vitro and In Vivo Assays: Feruloylputrescine Inhibits Trimethylamine via Suppressing cntA/B Enzyme". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 72 (14): 7870–7881. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.3c09005. ISSN 0021-8561.

Peaceray (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:TOOSOON. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need two articles?

While the disambiguator in this title is "fruit", the article contains much about the tree, so I wonder if we really need the separate Citrus × sinensis article, which, when the copious images are removed, is actually pretty stubby. And since all Citrus × sinensis trees are sweet orange trees (being they're an artificially selected hybrid that only exists because ancient people liked the fruit and blossoms), there's no distinctive botanical overarching to be concerned with. It comes off as redundant efforts for no benefit to the reader. (For that matter, orange blossom is literally one under-sourced paragraph with a couple of stray sentences, one entirely unsourced (the gallery of things other than actual orange blossoms was removed) and it should be merged as well. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. In reply, one might ask "Which two articles?" as there are several involved. The disambiguator is to separate the horticultural orange from the colour orange, the Dutch royal family, and suchlike things. If you look at the article's 'Hybrid origins' section, among others, you'll see that the article covers 'orange' more widely, not exactly limited to Citrus x sinensis though that's the, um, core of the botanical side of things. Given the mass of orange-coloured citrus fruits nowadays, from the tiniest mandarins to full-sized Jaffas with every imaginable variant in between including Type 2 and Type 3 Mandarins (which aren't Citrus reticulata like Type 1s, but complex hybrids), the fruit as commonly understood has a considerably wider remit than the single hybrid you suggest, and may indeed encompass the Bitter or Seville orange, Citrus x aurantium. So, no, this article is about oranges as commonly understood, and the botanical articles focus instead on specific hybrids or species. It seems a fair and very comprehensible distinction. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you bring up the color article? It's obviously not what I'm talking about. Total non-sequitur and not relevant.

As for the actual fruit, this article is in the whole about sweet oranges, not about the wider remit, as it says in the lead and elaborates upon throughout. The scope of this article is quite clear and specific. The "Hybrid origins" section, the ensuing history, the nutrition and taste section, all about sweet oranges exclusively. The other types of oranges are mentioned in passing at most, and readers are directed to the separate articles. Notably the bitter orange is explicitly contrasted and linked in the very first sentence. (And also notably there is one article for that variety, to which the botanical name is a redirect, not a separate article.)

I see your response and I have to wonder if you have actually read the article. Or, based on the pointless color digression, my actual comment to be frank. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you mentioned the "disambiguator", so I stated what was being disambiguated, which is nothing to do with other species or hybrids: certainly relevant.
Well, both yes and no, unfortunately. The bitter orange is contrasted in the lead, perhaps partly incorrectly; the article text I think correctly mentions it, for example under Marmalade, which people commonly call "orange" rather than "bitter orange", so I've tweaked the lead very slightly to reflect this. The point I'm making here is that the extension of "orange" is not strictly botanical (most folks neither know nor care when using the term), so an attempt to force this article into a strict botanical straitjacket would simply be a mistake.

That is a personal attack. You should know better; please stop at once. Civility is mandatory. You're also wrong, but I hardly feel like responding to rudeness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but I felt your initial response was dismissive and didn't address my points, so it rankled. Let's move on from that.

Also, please do not insert your responses into my comments. It causes material I did not write to appear above my signature. The talk page guideline specifically says not to do that.

As for the content, I don't think I'm calling for a strict botanical straitjacket, just a more wholistic understanding of the article scope based on the bulk of its existing content. The presence of one section on marmalade being made from bitter oranges doesn't outweigh the rest of the article's material being almost entirely about sweet oranges. Notably, the cultivar section doesn't mention bitter oranges at all. The adjustments you made to the lead aren't really supported by the body, either.

Perhaps the scope issue would best be addressed by moving this article to sweet orange, which already redirects here. That "orange" can be used to describe other citrus hybrids with mandarin ancestry is covered by the list of plants known as orange (though that list could use an audit and probably would be better as a more filled out set-index article describing the relations briefly). Or maybe we should split this article to put the sweet orange-specific material at that title and make this title into more of a set-index article. I'm just spitballing here.

To be clear, though, the purpose of my original comment was that the Citrus × sinensis feels like a unneeded content fork from the material specifically about sweet oranges, and since this is the article about sweet oranges I think it should probably just redirect here. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.garzantilinguistica.it/it/dizionario/it/cerca?q=portogallo&commit=%C2%A0

[2] ttp://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus_sinensis

[3] ttp://nap.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perteg%C3%A0ll

[4] ttp://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/t22.html

[5] ttp://www.languagehat.com/archives/004398.php

[6] TRILLO SAN JOSE, CARMEN (2004). AGUA Y PAISAJE EN GRANADA: UNA HERENCIA DE AL-ANDALUS. DIP. PROV. DE GRANADA. ISBN 9788478073528.

[7] Trillo San José, Carmen. "Water and landscape in Granada". Universidad de Granada.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]