Talk:Prunus spinosa

In Druidism
There needs to be something in this article about the importance of the Blackthorn Tree in the Druidic Tree-Calendar. Or perhaps as this is a botany article, it could be linked to an article about the calendar.--AaronCarson (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sloe-eyed
why does "sloe-eyed" redirect to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.136.238 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, Sloe-eyed should probably redirect to the Wiktionary. It means "with dark slanted eyes."--AaronCarson (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just dark eyes, no particular shape. Indeed, this redirect and a bunch of variants such as "slow eye" make no sense at all. I've nominated them for deletion. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See last sentence under 'Uses'. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So perhaps a compromise would be to move that sentence out of "Uses", perhaps to the beginning of the page, and just delete the redirects Slow-eyes, Slow eyes, Slow eye, Slow-eye, and Slow-eyed, which a google search indicates are used to mean that eyes move slowly. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above assertion is incorrect. The etymology of "sloe-eyed" is a direct reference to the color of the blackthorn fruit, the usage of which dates back to 1867.  The "slow" meaning is simply a homophone confusion; the notion that it refers to eyes moving slowly is a mondegreen.  I can provide further documentation if necessary but this would require a trip to the library; the link here is simply a quick sourcing. I think a wikitionary link is fine but feel the redirects should stay in place since confusion -- as is evident in this very discussion -- is common with the term. Hythlodayalmond (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a disambiguation page is needed. (Not at all sure what assertion you are saying is incorrect.) Nadiatalent (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The assertions I'm disputing are that redirecting "slow-eyed" and its variants to the Prunus spinosa page "make[s] no sense at all", and that "slow-eyed" means "that eyes move slowly". As far as I can tell, the usage of "slow-eyed" to mean lazy is non-existent, and is merely a misspelling of "sloe-eyed" (meaning dark in color like the berry, a usage that is almost a century and a half old).  A disambiguation page doesn't strike me as useful in this context because it artificially divides the meaning of the term when no such division actually exists.
 * I don't understand why the current situation isn't optimal. Searches for misspellings and mondegreens of "sloe-eyed" redirect to the Prunus spinosa page, which in its second line informs the reader of the correct spelling and meaning of the term, as well as a little of its history.  What problem is deleting the redirects or establishing a disambiguation page supposed to solve? Hythlodayalmond (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

When I search in Google I get "Slow Eye Movements - What does SEM stand for? Acronyms and ...", "Speranzaria Tutorial (for the slow-eyed) - YouTube (because ... my previous tutorial was too fast". From Google scholar comes a host of papers dealing with Slow Eye Movements in the study of sleep, fetal development, and EEG spectra. Those are important topics for Wikipedia to cover. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with tying this together with a disambiguation page is that we do not so far have any citation to support the claim that "slow eyed" can mean "sloe eyed", it seems to be just a very unfortunate misspelling. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I just don't know what you're talking about. I just now performed a Google search for every variant of "slow-eyed" that currently redirects to this page and the top hits for every one are all about the dark eye color or the berry.  I would understand your argument if it were indeed the case that there are people who sincerely believe that some medical condition involving torpid eyes is called "slow eyes" but I just don't see any.  My Google searches all seem to reflect the fact that "slow" is a homophone for "sloe" and are doing the redirect to correct for confusion that I think is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Are we using different Googles? What term are you searching for?
 * This may be premature but what about this: a line at the top of the page that says "'slow-eyed' redirects here. For lazy eye conditions, see Amblyopia"? Hythlodayalmond (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Try scholar.google.com, (2) when regular Google says "Showing results for sloe-eyed. Search instead for slow-eyed.", try clicking the option for "search instead". Regular google shows very little, however. The fact that Google thinks that "slow-eyed" is a typo for "sloe-eyed" shouldn't be taken as gospel by Wikipedia, it's just one opinion. What page are you talking about that refers to Amblyopia? Nadiatalent (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did those searches and now see what you're talking about. But I think that demonstrates my point better than it demonstrates yours: the fact that one has to do either a Google Scholar search or undo the Google redirect from sloe to slow more or less proves that "slow-eyed" isn't a common usage and that the predominant intention when "slow-eyed" is typed is a mondegreen for "sloe-eyed".  I agree that this shouldn't be taken as gospel by Wikipedia, but I repeat my question: what problem is deleting the redirects supposed to fix if all the evidence we have points to "slow-eyed" most commonly being a typo?
 * I was making a proposal to compromise when I suggested adding a 'see instead Amblyopia' link at the top of this page. That's as close as I can think of to any medical condition of "slow eyes" that wouldn't be a typo for "sloe-eyed"; in other words, the only possible way I can imagine someone typing "slow eyed" and meaning "eyes that are slow in their movement" is Amblyopia. Hythlodayalmond (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Non-rapid eye movement sleep would be a candidate for a redirect. Amblyopia is different, lazy eye has to do with the eye not working, rather than with it moving slowly. If you and other discussants agree, I would accept changing those slow-eye, slow-eyes, slow-eyed, with and without hyphens, to redirect to Non-rapid eye movement sleep. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I do not accept that counter-proposal. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that proposal. As I indicated above, all evidence points to "sloe-eyed" as the most common intention when searching for "slow-eyed" and its variants. I have not seen any evidence presented to the contrary, and am frankly baffled why anyone would think so. As such the redirects should stay as they are.
 * My counterproposal is this: add this line to the top of this page: "'Sloe-eyed' and 'Slow-eyed' redirect here. For sleep stages 1-3, see Non-rapid eye movement sleep." I think that preserves the most appropriate redirects while still making it easy for someone who's genuinely searching for slow eye movement (and not merely misspelling "sloe-eyed") to get the page they want. Hythlodayalmond (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, since I think the status quo is more or less optimal. Feel free to present a different idea or some actual substantiation for the notion that the redirects should point somewhere else and we can take this up at that time. Hythlodayalmond (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been reached at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 7. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the fruit edible?
Is the fruit edible? In what forms and amounts? Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a partial answer see Prunus spinosa (yes, as preserves...) Hamamelis (talk)
 * You can eat them raw, but they are REALLY sour - maybe astringent might be a better word. The linked article describes the "rough 'sandpapery' or dry sensation in the mouth" after eating sloes. Although I have almost acquired a taste for them over the years, it's difficult to eat one without pulling a face. Folklore has it that they're sweeter after the first frost, although whether it's because the freezing affects the flavour or because they aren't fully ripe until late in the autumn, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prunus spinosa. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121223202805/http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs315001.pdf to http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs315001.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritual meal/human sacrifice
Hundreds of sloes have been found in a Celtic bog body believed ritually sacrificed. This may be worth following up on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhkuLeobhXo Rklawton (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)