Talk:Brazil nut

In Brazil

What are Brazil nuts called in Brazil? Kent Wang 21:28, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are called "Castanha do Pará". Pará is a state in Northern Brazil. PMLF 21:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can the title of article be changed? I'm from Pará and we consider it offensive to call them "Brazil" nuts. Its like Açai, which is not brazilian - its paraense. Most of the country doesn't feature it. - F. Augusto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.239.65.146 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Nigger toes" slang term

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can confirm that (sad to say) the racist term for these nuts, deleted by MPF as "unverified", has in fact been in use in the U.S.A. although I don't know just how widespread it may be. Do we pretend it doesn't exist out of ethnic/cultural sensitivity or political correctness? (I have always found this term to be extremely offensive and won't be the one to put it back in.) MrDarwin 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

there is even a redirect from nigger toes to Brazil nut - how can you say it is unsubstantiated. BTW, see also "Nigger in popular culture" in the wikipedia article on nigger. As an African American, I can appreciate your sensitivity but racism should not be hidden as if it never existed - that's dangerous. (unsigned comment by User:Butros)

Butros, do you see any way the term could be put back into the article while maintaining some measure of sensitivity? MrDarwin 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd want to see two things if it is going back in:

• a citation (a redirect is not a citation)
• some discussion of what it adds to the article. - Csari 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What it adds to the article is factual information, and it's standard for Wikipedia articles on plant species to include common (vernacular) names. Facts are sometimes unpleasant. MrDarwin 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OED 2nd ed. offers this:

6. attrib. (passing into adj.) ... c. In special uses ... nigger toe U.S., a Brazil nut

• 1896 Dialect Notes I. 421 *Nigger toes: for Brazil nuts.
• 1958 J. M. Lacy in A. Dundes Mother Wit (1973) 597/2 He buys..nuts called 'nigger toes'.
• 1973 Times 27 Aug. 5/8 In Virginia brazil nuts are called nigger-toes and chewed with great relish.

Worded as a nonjudgmental statement of fact it appears encyclopedic enough to me. Femto 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced information doesn't belong in Wikipedia (WP:CITE). Even if it were sourced, I'd still delete it. Wikipedia is NOT "an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Some information can disappear; I will not mourn its loss.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (Preceeding comment was copied from User talk:MPF.) That said, Butros' point is a good one. But, I don't think it should go back in without providing some context for younger and/or non-American readers, e.g., nigger, Jim Crow laws, etc. I wouldn't want people using Nigger toes for Brazil nuts citing Wikipedia as justification. My preference would be to treat racism in context, however, not in articles where it isn't germane to the subject. Of course, its presence here is evidence of its ubiquity.
During a 1966 telescope meeting, in a talk on the history of the construction of the 200 inch telescope on Mount Palomar, an astronomer described moving large parts up "Nigger Grade". (This is from memory.) Crawford, David Livingstone, ed. (1966). The Construction of large telescopes (International Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 27 ed.). London, New York: Academic Press. p. 234. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help) I suppose you could make the argument for including that information in articles on the 200 inch telescope or on telescope design and construction. It was published by a reputable publisher. But it is really not relevant there, nor is it here, in my judgement. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Walter. Berton 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Let's face it. This debate would not be occurring at all if the former colloquial term for a brown-skinned Brazil nut was "gorilla toe" or "chocolate toe" or was even something brown and unpleasant that deserves to be elided from the lexicon, such as "feces toe" (all hypothetical/rhetorical to demonstrate my point). The article would just matter-of-factly state: "The term “feces toe” has fallen into disuse during the latter 20th century, as the more erudite and polite term “Brazil nut” has risen in frequency of usage in the American dialect of English." (Can that sentence be any more encyclopedic? Perhaps only by giving an empircal linguistic reference too.) The opposition to even mentioning that the antiquated term has fallen into disuse in the article is in itself predicated on racism or race-consciousness revisionism of factual history, whichever one wants to call it. —optikos 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Opitikos, i have edited to article to reflect this but have used less complex language. Even though i believe that the term is objectionable, the simple fact is that the truth, no matter how terrible or objectionable, should be always be conveyed. Let the readers make their own judgments, don't simply use censorship to achieve your own benevolent ends. --71.146.31.46 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have lived in the United States and that term has never been used. If it has it has been used it definitely is not common. I have never heard it. You are not from the US yet you insist on readding it the description with no proof it has ever been used. Perhaps you are thinking of the UK. How many other message boards or wikipedia entries have you vandalized with you juvenile pranks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.72.31 (talk • contribs) .

It's in the OED, for one, and there are several online accounts. So what, you can live in the US and never hear soda called pop. Yes, I'm neither from the US or UK and don't want historically relevant slang terms get swept under the carpet. Your unilateral removal is disruptive. Groundless accusations of vandalism do not strengthen your point. Do not repeat this. Femto 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an encyclopedia set from the 1950s and it uses that term as well as a whole bunch of other things. 156.34.239.49 (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Femto. I have heard it used a number of times in the Midwest. It is a part of the American colloquial lexicon. The current phrasing is acceptable and the entry should be left alone.Spikey 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear soda called pop everyday... I lived on both coasts, north and south. This is your juvenile prank which is simply proven by your insistence that it be displayed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.72.31 (talk • contribs) .

This article is missing an image of an deshelled brazil nut. When one sees the brown skin that an deshelled brazil nut has, it is obviously in the shape of an oversized human (or generally mammalian) toe and with a brown skin, it is obvious how the widespread unfortunate use of "nigger toe" in the USA occurred (as opposed to calling it a Swedish toe or a British toe). I grew up during the 1970s in the Great Lakes region of the USA (well outside of The South) just a mile away from a house that was on the Underground Railroad and everyone that I know called them nigger toes (including black people) until approximately the 1970s or 1980s when parents were trying to break their next-generation children of the habit. In fact the term was so widespread that many people who wanted to stop calling them nigger toes did not know any other term for them. Having grown up in a family that did not tolerate racism, we still used the term "nigger toes" for brazil nuts, as it was the first name that I learned for them at age 3 or so and was the only name for them that I knew until age 7 or 8. I remember each and every holiday season this coming up for debate every time a can of mixed nuts was present in a room with multiple people in it. The desire to avoid calling them by their derogatory name was so strong that I remember people explicitly shopping for cans of mixed nuts that omitted brazil nuts to avoid the entire perennial debate; their viewpoint was to strike the term from the lexicon by striking the nut from the household. This article should respectfully state that the former term "nigger toe" for these nuts has fallen into disuse during the latter 20th century (without further explanation or embellishment). But most importantly this article needs an image of an deshelled brazil nut (with its brown skin left on as is the customary serving practice), even if the text "nigger toes" is forever considered off-limits in this article. To strike the term by striking the image is as silly as my aforementioned striking of the term by striking the nut from the Holiday season. —optikos 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't look like toes at all.

I'm opposed to racial insensitivity like most others, but this is ridiculous. The mention of the "nigger toes" term in the current version of the article is loaded with a sense of politically correct hesitation and moral bias. It's as if the writer was so uncomfortable with the existence of this historical fact that they felt the need to announce their disapproval of it.

The sentence reads: "An old pejorative slang term in the United States was 'nigger toes'." However, not only is the term poorly mentioned (along with an ambiguous reference to its purported antiquity), its label isn't even accurate. Going by the Wikipedia article for "pejorative" that it linked to: "A word or phrase is pejorative if it implies contempt or disapproval." Yet the term "nigger toes" is not a pejorative term for the Brazil Nut, given that it does not aim to disparage or belittle the nut itself. Yes, it was a slang term; yes, it was a term based on another term that was often (but not always) used pejoratively; but, no, it was not a pejorative term in itself. Furthermore, I doubt that many people who referred to Brazil Nuts as "nigger toes" meant it in a disrespectful way, regardless of the insensitivity (or silliness) many of us may personally find in it today. Either way, however, the 'properness' of its usage is not relevant to its inclusion—it was a common and widespread term (which I can also personally attest to, though I've never used it myself), and thus bears mentioning as a fact of history, regrettable or not.

Afterall, Wikipedia is a source of encyclopedic information; it should not be a place to espouse personal views. Removing or censoring any facts that might be deemed offensible by some would be to misunderstand its purpose and to misrepresent its content. You are doing no service to its readers by making moral judgments for them, or by deciding which information they should have access to.

That being said, I have modified the sentence to state the following: "Though it has largely fallen into disuse since the latter 20th century, a common slang term for the nuts in some regions of the United States was "nigger toes", due to some finding a similarity in appearance between the unshelled nuts and the toes of African Americans." --— Poga — 08:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As of this post (more than a year after the preceding one), there still seems to be occasional controversy concerning the inclusion of the term in the nomenclature section. This is understandable, but I still think that the term's notability and widespread prevalence during a significant period of history (and even today in some regions) warrants its inclusion. The sentence in question has been revised a few times, and currently reads as follows:

And, though it has largely fallen into disuse since the latter part of the 20th century, a common slang term for the nuts in some regions of the United States (especially the South) was "nigger toes".

--— Poga — (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that the term is still used, at least, in the Midwest. My MIL used it casually at Christmas, prompting outrage from the rest of the family (in part due to the fact that I am African American), but she insisted, "There's nothing offensive about it; that's just what they are called!" Ain't life innerestin'? Carlaclaws 16:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I live in Virgina and my dad always used this term. In our house the "nigger toes" were fought over in the mixed nuts can. I guess it is racist to say nigger. But we are talking about a nut here people. Get over yourselves. I do not hate black people because I was taught to use the term in this manner.

I live in Michigan and have heard my grandmother use the term casually as well.

I was raised with this being called a "nigger toe". It wasn't until I was in college that I learned it's true name, and have called it a Brazil Nut ever since. In all my childhood, I never heard it referred to as anything but a "nigger toe". It's not a nice word, and I no longer use it. 69.207.189.124 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am from LA and used the term until I went to junior high and learned better. My father used the term (he was from PA). I don't care if the reference is in here or not, but it is absurd to ask for a citation for it. I dont think using the term "nigger toe" is necessarily racist, especially if the user does not know of this seed by any other name. Naerhu (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The above debate is yet another example of political correctness gone wild: The word "nigger" may be considered pejorative today, but a hundred (or so) years ago, it was the standard phrase to use for black people. That the brasil nut, at that time, went by "nigger toe" is not in anyway pejorative. If true (as appears to be the case) it is a historical fact that cannot be excluded from the article on such grounds. The OP's claim that it is a "racist term" is equally unfounded---unless it can be shown that modern day (white) racists use it to belittle black people.94.220.243.230 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• use of term when I was a kid, my family from central Texas used the term to describe the nut. I grew up in north central Kansas, where a friend of mine was sent to the principal's office in sixth grade for using the term. I'd say that's two samples of YES at least once upon a time it was a widely used term, and therefore (once sourced) should be properly included.--75.23.248.60 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know what a brazil nut was growing up. Everyone referred to them as nigger toes. And those chocolate covered cream things too...my father called those nigger toes. It wasn't really racist to me, just the only terminology that I knew them as. And yes i'd agree that covering up racism and the racial issues of the past is very dangerous. Unverified? No, it's definitely verified, and has been used in our culture for decades.

Archived discussion that has become a list of WP:OR; please review the guidance of WP:TALK.Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalization?

Is there any reason why the second word of the title is capitalized? On wiki articles with multiple word titles, the first letter of the other words are left lower case (unless it is the title of a book, or movie, etc.) I was just curious if there was a specific reason, or if it should be changed. cøøkiə Ξ _(talk) 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, at least some of the biology WikiProjects have guidelines to treat names like this as proper nouns (it's not "nut, Brazilian" but a compound term "Brazil Nut"). Similar, Bottlenose Dolphin, there may be further pointers buried in its talk page. I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Femto 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with WP naming conventions, I'm pretty sure that it should be located at Brazil nut. DWaterson 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Only shelled nuts available to buy?

I vaguely remember that it became illegal to buy / import Brazil nuts in a unshelled state in the UK for some health reason. Can anyone confirm this? Markb 12:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reason added for UK and Europe Glanarfor (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that UK shops were as full as usual of unshelled (ie complete with shell) Brazil nuts in December 2007. This looks like misinformation or a wrong vague memory. I've added a cite tag to the statement in the article. 78.149.131.106 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following content. Please see the discussion above, WP:RS and WP:FN before returning it the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically the nuts cannot be imported into europe in their shells, as the shells have been found to contain high levels of Aflatoxins, which can lead to liver cancer.

Butt Nut?

Is there any reason the main photo is captionned "butt Nut" or is that grafitti?

Vandalism that wasn't caught previously. Fixed. MrDarwin 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I propose that this page be moved to Brazil nut in accordance with WP:NAMING. The whole term is not a proper noun. --Hnsampat 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Move. This article was originally there [1]; the change appears to have been an act of vandalism. -- Smjg 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Move. There are other potential capitalisation issues in the body of the article. In my view the name of the nut should be written "brazil nut", not "Brazil nut". I am not sure about the name of the tree. Should it be "Brazil nut" or "brazil nut". Thoughts? Matt 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC).
• Move - proper capitalization. Although I wouldn't call the first move vandalism The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• According to WP:PLANT, this should be moved to the scientific name, not a lowercase one. Dekimasuよ! 14:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that the article should be titled "Bertholletia excelsa"? I doubt that's what most people would want or expect. Anyway, it seems not to have been done in other similar cases, where there is only one species to contend with (see e.g. almond, coconut, cashew, pistachio). Matt 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

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.

Sapucaia?

"Sapucaia" is not really an alternate name for Bertholletia excelsa. It's the name of related species Lecythis pisonis. See the entry in the Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Sapucaia. Sapucaia seeds are also edible, but different from Brazil nuts. MCBastos (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal unsubstantiated health claims

I removed the sentence "Selenium has also been cited as strongly benefitting various other conditions, such as HIV, lung cancer, colon cancer, and dandruff, as well as boosting a healthy thyroid." for a number of reasons:

1. the results of both epidemiological and toxicological research on the health implications of selenium intake are objectively inconclusive and currently ambiguous;
2. no large-scale systematic reviews are available on the associations between selenium intake and these health outcomes, only individual studies, the methods behind some of which are quite poor;
3. the "boosting a healthy thyroid" comment simply does not make sense; and
4. there are no citations provided.

Jimjamjak (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, selenium is not required by plants, therefore there is no selenium in plants which grow in soils which are selenium-deficient. Such soils are common in rain-forest areas. Claims which state that Brazil nuts "contain selenium" are therefore sometimes false. Brazil nuts can "sometimes contain selenium" is more correct. Landroo (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: "Brazil nut oil is rich in magnesium and has the highest known concentration of selenium of any nut oil.[20]" Because that is not what the citation says at all. It is talking about the nut meat, not the nut oil. NO culinary oil is a nutritionally significant source of a mineral. If it were a source of say, magnesium, it would be combined with the oil in the form of a stearate or oleate salt, like magnesium stearate, which would have a nasty, soapy taste, or astringent sensation in the mouth. In preparing culinary oils, every effort is made to keep such compounds out of the finished product. Ramblersyndicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramblersyndicate (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

1180% of the USRDV- for how much?

Nutritionally, Brazil nuts are perhaps the richest source of selenium, containing as much as 1180% of the USRDV. Please include the weight for which this percentage has been given (per nut? per average dose? or per 100g maybe? ) Thanks, 79.181.16.227 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, what does USDRV stand for? I am assuming it means United States Daily Recommended Value. The definition should be added to the article (see nutrition section). Acronyms should always be spelled out in articles. 76.204.148.81 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You can give data for nutrition of Brazil nuts per 100g, but it would be incorrect to refer to 100g as a "serving". Nobody is eating 100g of Brazil nuts at once. (Really, it is so difficult to do, that it should be the next YouTube meme.)

A 100 gram amount is the scientific standard for quantifying a measure per unit weight of a food, pesticides in soil, chemicals in plants, etc. The USDA nutrient database offers 100 gram, one kernel, one ounce (6 kernels), or US cup amounts when the user browses nutrient contents, such as here. I changed the article text to simply say "100 gram amount." --Zefr (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Brazil nut allergy

'After peanuts, Brazil nuts are the most common trigger of "nut-related" allergies in the UK.' from the following website: http://www.ifr.ac.uk/public/foodinfosheets/edpbrazil.html it goes on to talk about an interesting study about the allergens195.92.40.49 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ifr link above was found dead on 22 Dec 2011

UK TV program "QI" broadcast 23 Dec 2011 cited that Brazil nuts are the only nut whose allergens can be sexually transmitted. The sexual transmission aspect is indicated in a study available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583107, here: www.jiaci.org/issues/vol17issue03/10.pdf and in other locations. I have not followed up as to whether this is unique amongst Brazil nuts, but is it worthy of being included in the main article? --Timnicebutt (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

orchids involved in reproduction ?

The reproduction section mentions orchids (as well as 'orchid bees'). "The Brazil nut tree's yellow flowers contain very sweet nectar and can only be pollinated by an insect strong enough to lift the coiled hood on the flower and with tongues long enough to negotiate the complex coiled flower. The orchids..." Which orchids, there is no previous mention of orchids ? This should be reworded and the relevant specie of orchid identified if possible. 24.17.110.63 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• OrchidWeb says it's Coryanthes vasquezii. Dangerous Emotions By Alphonso Lingis points out that it doesn't grow on the Brazil nut tree. Not R (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Comment copied here from my edit summary so that "discuss" link will work:

There may be radioactive isotopes of selenium (there are of virtually every element), but is "ordinary" selenium radioactive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.243.208 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the content that was not supported by footnote and removed dubious tag. Please sign your comments on talk pages by ending them with "~~~~". Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nigger toes

Tbone2001 (talk · contribs) added "In some parts of the U. S., they are colloquially known as "nigger toes", though it has fallen out of favor in recent years."[2] The cited source ("Actually, My Hair Isn't Red", Matt Brazil, The Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 14, 2000) reads as follows.

Hearing angmo so often took me back to my childhood, when my friends and I used the words Jew and Gyp (the latter short for Gypsy) as verbs, meaning to cheat. At that time, in the 1960s, other racial epithets, these based on physical appearance, were commonly heard: cracker, slant-eye, bongo lips, knit-head. To digress to the ludicrous, Brazil nuts were called "nigger toes."

While it provides a source for the usage, it does not support the other content. I could not verify that Mr. Brazil spent his childhood in the United States. The source does not indicate that it has fallen out of favor. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the edit the way I did by combining the sourced material with the discussion above that's been going on for over 2 years. The source is the Wall Street Journal which I thought was pretty reliable and American. And though I understand the concern about the content, I think what I added was, at minimum, encyclopedic, and words like "ludicrous" are subjective and show an unnecessary bias. Pejorative may be a better term. The way I worded it was to prevent an uproar. But at the same, being African American, when I looked at this article I wondered how it was not mentioned, as much as I don't like it. I know many people here in Texas that honestly did not know what they were really called or learned later in life. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 05:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "[a]rticle content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view." I used the word "ludicrous" because it is used by a reliable source. Other points of view may be included, if they are well-sourced. However, WP:UNDO limits the space available for such a discussion.

A scholarly work on racial pejoratives may do a better job of providing context, history, distribution, etc., but the WSJ article provides some of that. That is why I quoted the article at some length (but consistent with my reading of fair use).

The WSJ has international distribution. Mr. Brazil is said to live in Australia and may have spent his childhood there. My guess is that the term diffused throughout much of the English speaking world.

Previously, in this article, the term was included without context and source and it violated my reading of WP:NOT and WP:RS. With the footnote, source link and interwiki link, that context and source provided, I agree that it is encyclopedaic, but still think that it is best covered in articles like nigger that provide more context, history, etc. Please see my 2006 comment also. However, I defer to the wisdom of my fellow editors on this point.

Thank you for tracking down a source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot review your source without registering, but it sounds like an editorial. The term is not ludicrous. It may be offensive and politically incorrect but applying the term ludicrous is POV even if its in the Wall Street Journal.--Weetoddid (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the context in the footnote and on the talk page. I'm sure that the full article is available in many libraries since the Wall Street Journal is a major global newspaper. "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'." (Wikipedia:NPOV#Neutral_point_of_view} Isn't this what you are attempting to do (in violation of a core policy of Wikipedia)? What am I missing? The source does not support "offensive and politically incorrect". If you can find a source supporting your assertion that it is not "ludicrous", please do so. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The last two comments above were copied from User_talk:Wsiegmund.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose deletion of this reference. Since when does all factual information warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic article? Offensive material like this term is excludable according to WP:GRATUITOUS. The omission of this term does not make the article about the Brazil nut tree less informative, relevant or accurate. Similarly, the exclusion of “towel head” from Sikh and Muslim and the exclusion of “Jewing down” from bargaining do not cause those articles to be less informative, relevant or accurate. Offensive terms like these are already defined in Wiktionary.

(Didn't see this, so copying my comments from below and expanding.)

Re recent attempts to remove all mention of that epithet from the article: The reference to WP:GRATUITOUS is not applicable because this name and the relating information is not, to paraphrase, in there just for shits and giggles. It is a short but pertinent discussion of the history and current treatment of a widely-used name (see two other section son this talk page for some info about its widespread nature). As such its function is not to aggravate/shock/be-in-there-just-because-we-can, but to provide relevant information pertaining to the topic. We have entire articles on chink, cracker etc.; such content is not unencyclopedic just because it is perceived as offensive. I don't see how one can argue that the removal of sourced usage history would not make the article less informative.

FYI - Towelhead, apparently considered encyclopedic. And if you believe that definitions of offensive terms belong only in Wiktionary, then knock yourself out on this page... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

NOTE Before we descend into edit-warring here - please everyone read WP:BRD. Bold edits are fine, but if removed and contested, you are expected to discuss first and reach consensus before you have another go at it. Please keep to the program. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bolstering my argument. I had already seen List of Ethnic Slurs. The term “towel head” rightfully belongs there, not in the main article on Muslim or Sikh. The same logic applies to Nigger Toes. The mere fact that a racist ethnic slur exists does not warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Elmidae: I challenge you to to defend your argument for “Nigger Toes” by inserting a reference to “Jewing down” in bargaining. Its inclusion there, like “Nigger Toes” here, would be entirely gratuitous. Jam cpa (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems your interpretation of "rightfully belongs" is at odds with mine. Also, "challenge" ignored; there are hundreds of synonyms for common verbs, only a few for most organisms (and they generally are enumerated in the article, if common enough). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, then, if you wish to arbitrarily restrict this discussion to articles on organisms, I’ll play your game. Please review Frog. Do you see any reference to the French? By your logic— based on the mere fact that the term “frog” exists as an ethnic slur for French people— the slur should be featured in an encyclopedic article about the organism frog, because without it the article would convey an understanding of frogs that would be “less informative, relevant or accurate.” (Ref WP:GRATUITOUS) Jam cpa (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Elmidae, you have responded several times but consistently failed to demonstrate why the term “nigger toes” should be referenced in this article. “It’s encyclopedic” is not a helpful argument for inclusion (Ref WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC). Likewise, “Nigger toes was the only term I heard when I was young” and similar anecdotal statements on usage are not valid arguments for inclusion, because they do nothing to demonstrate that omission of the term would make the article a less informative, relevant or accurate composition about the biological organism Brazil nut tree. Jam cpa (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to do you a favour and ignore the frog thing - if you can't see that inverse applicability isn't the issue here, I clearly am not the one to bring the point home. As a more relevant article, let's take.. how about Atlantic_goliath_grouper#Terminology? - You are welcome to turn this into a formal WP:RFC, btw, which should hopefully get wider input. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You’re not doing anyone any favors by continuing to dodge the question: why should an encyclopedic article contain reference to an ethnic slur simply because the slur exists? First, you arbitrarily limited discussion to articles on organisms. Now, you claim that the question is irrelevant in a situation of inverse applicability. What will you do next? Limit discussion to articles with edit date of last Thursday? You have reverted my edit three times without explaining why you have done so. For now, I’ll continue playing your game, because I am attempting in good faith to engage in civil discussion. Why is there no mention of the ethnic slur “frog” in the French People article? Isn’t it true that the slur exists? By your logic, that alone should warrant inclusion.

Interesting (though irrelevant): I’ve lived on the eastern coast of the U.S. and eaten grouper for almost my whole life, but I’ve never heard the term Jewfish. It seems that the term Jewfish is notable because previously it was a common name with scientific sanction in the U.S., until protesters successfully petitioned the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists and the American Fisheries Society’s Joint Committee on Names of Fishes to change the official name to something else. “Nigger toe” has never been an officially sanctioned name for anything, anywhere. (I could be wrong, but I do not believe there is any American Nut Society with authority on the matter. They may have voted for our current president, though.) Jam cpa (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This entire project consists of material that is covered "because it exists" - provided it passes certain strictures of notability. To that end, I've just added a few references to the article.

Further - no, I'm not going to discuss all the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cases you can dredge up. You may be interested in playing games (and possibly have endless time to do so), I am not. And I find your style of hyperbolic sealioning rather difficult to take calmly. Thus, since the two of us will not establish a consensus, I will leave you to crow rhetoric victory in your next missive, and engage again when some other editors chime in (some Wikiproject Plants people may choose to do so now). If that doesn't happen within a few days, I will launch an RfC to get some eyes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How embarrassing to see people fight to exclude information from a damn encyclopedia. 216.248.123.183 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

agreedPurpleChez (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Pic of tree, please

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nut or tree?

Currently, the article takes the view that the tree, too, is called Brazil nut. This is illogical and seems highly dubious to me. More likely, this is colloquial use to save time, as is the case with hazel nut instead of hazel nut bush, and similar. Unless this use can be verified as the truly correct, which seems unlikely, I suggest that the article is rephrased.94.220.243.230 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is considered a seed, not a nut...

However, more baffling is why there is an insistence on keeping a paragraph containing complete nonsense about the tree belonging to the order Ericales

"The Brazil nut family is in the order Ericales, as are other well known plants such as: blueberries, cranberries, sapote, gutta-percha, tea, kiwi fruit, phlox, and persimmons."

If you don't like the way I edited the information, then go ahead and change it to your hearts desire, but why would you keep putting the incorrect info back in?

Here is the correct info, as taken from the USDA plant database...

Classification:

Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl.

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Lecythidales

Family Lecythidaceae – Brazil-nut family

Genus Bertholletia Humb. & Bonpl. – bertholletia

Species Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl. – brazilnut

The order Ericales is as follows...

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Ericales

Contains 7 Families and 422 accepted taxa overall

Family Clethraceae – Clethra family

Family Cyrillaceae – Cyrilla family

Family Empetraceae – Crowberry family

Family Epacridaceae – Epacris family

Family Ericaceae – Heath family

Family Monotropaceae – Indian Pipe family

Family Pyrolaceae – Shinleaf family

As for the order Ericales, blueberry , cranberry... yes

Sapote

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Rosidae

Order Sapindales

Family Rutaceae – Rue family

Genus Casimiroa Llave & Lex. – sapote

Gutta-percha (palaquium)

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Ebenales

Family Sapotaceae – Sapodilla family

Genus Palaquium Blanco – palaquium

Tea

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Theales

Family Theaceae – Tea family

Genus Camellia L. – camellia

Species Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze – tea

kiwi

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Theales

Family Actinidiaceae – Chinese Gooseberry family

Genus Actinidia Lindl. – actinidia

Species Actinidia chinensis Planch. – kiwi

phlox

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Asteridae

Order Solanales

Family Polemoniaceae – Phlox family

Genus Phlox L. – phlox

persimmon

Kingdom Plantae – Plants

Subkingdom Tracheobionta – Vascular plants

Superdivision Spermatophyta – Seed plants

Division Magnoliophyta – Flowering plants

Class Magnoliopsida – Dicotyledons

Subclass Dilleniidae

Order Ebenales

Family Ebenaceae – Ebony family

Genus Diospyros L. – diospyros

Species Diospyros virginiana L. – common persimmon

So as you can see that one little paragraph about the Ericales is full of numerous errors, all of which can easily be verified and should have been, BEFORE putting it into a wikipedia page. Just because several thousand lazy people copy and paste the same lie over and over again into their web-pages does not make it true...

It took me five minutes to find the correct info, and that's already too much time wasted on this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.5 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Unfortunately USDA PLANTS taxonomy is often badly out of date. Many of our articles are edited by experts who try to keep the information current. Consequently, the taxonomy on Wikipedia may not be consistent with USDA PLANTS. Instead, content should be based on WP:RS. That may include USDA PLANTS, but also other databases as well as the scholarly literature. In APGII, Lecythidaceae is placed in Ericales. [4] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have relied on USDA for years... disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.5 (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Storage conditions?

Lots of fats means probably that they should be kept in cold. How cold exactly? 85.76.35.76 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bertholletia excelsa and carnitine content......

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Bertholletia+excelsa%22+Carnitine&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.215.115 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tautology?

The Brazil nut tree is the only species in the monotypic type genus Bertholletia. Is not a monotypic genus one which has only one species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

They are widely referred to as nigger toes in the midwest. There is a ridiculous excess of wiki-lawyering to keep it off the page. I'm putting it back. Other users have sourced it and had it removed on technicalities. I'm not wasting my time. It's a fact that is important to the topic. It belongs in the article, period. 174.252.251.65 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm...no. Not without a reliable, verifiable source, anyway. Besides which, based on the commentary above, this matter has been closed for quite some time, with WP:CONSENSUS established NOT to include that phrase. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the consensus of the earlier discussions seems to have been that the information about the colloquial name should be left in the article (albeit sensitively worded) and in fact if you examine the history of the article, this information was included continuously for several years until being deleted in April of this year, by an anonymous editor, without any discussion whatsoever. It's an unfortunate but significant fact about the history of this nut that they were once widely (and to some extent still are) known in the USA as "nigger toes" and were listed unapologetically with this name in numerous botanical and horticultural references. As unpleasant as it is, this is something that needs to be addressed rather than swept under the rug. In case anybody needs a scholarly reference, see p. 228 of this article in the respected botanical journal Botanical Gazette: W.J. Young 1911, "The Brazil Nut", Bot. Gaz. 52(3): 226-231 (free pdf, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2466866.pdf). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.23.70 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2011 September 29

This usage is discussed in Nigger#Popular_culture wherein the history, context, and other usages are covered. The word "nigger" appears in almost 1200 articles.[5] If there is an attempt to sweep such usages "under the rug", it isn't succeeding. Most occurrences are in articles on music, theatre and film, literature, politics and history, and related biographies. Biota articles with the term are rare. Nigger toe and its variants redirect to this article.[6] Similarly, nigger daisy and niggerhead are redirected to Rudbeckia hirta.[7] However, those terms do not appear in that article. Niggerhead (disambiguation) lists Carex secta, Echinocactus polycephalus and Echinacea, also. Among animals, nigger butterfly is redirected to Orsotriaena which mentions the term. Apart from the above, I found several examples among place-names including California County Routes in zone S and Negro Bill Canyon. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that the text was deleted in April without notification or discussion of any kind, and by an anonymous editor. Can you point me to any discussion among Wikipedia editors that resulted in anything near a consensus to remove this historical information? 98.218.23.70 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A previous discussion at Talk:Brazil_nut#Nigger_toes led to inclusion of content discussing this term in July 2009.[8] It stood until September.[9] Subsequently, it was restored, but latter trimmed by several editors to the point that I felt it no longer provided adequate context for inclusion. It was removed altogether in June 2011 by an anon with an unhelpful edit summary.[10] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Random wikipedia user here. I've always heard them called nigger toes, and am surprised this was removed from the article. You might think the term is 'not nice' but it's still used, and I think wikipedia is more about documenting what 'is' not what 'is nice' -- at least I've heard it quite a bit, I live in the Midwestern US. I'd add it back in myself but I don't want to start an "edit war" over it. I'll instead just urge you to put it back, as it is relevant to the article.

I have never the term until last night at a bar here in Indianapolis. I have no idea how the subject came up, but they used the term "Nigger Nuts". I was absolutely stunned. They did clarify it to mean Brazilian Nuts and were obviously embarrassed that they used to use the term. Most likely they never knew the real name growing up in their households. MPA 23:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I grew up in central Illinois in the 1980s and '90s, and "nigger toes" is most certainly used there. My grandfather (born 1929) still uses it. This term should be added back to the article. Wikipedia should not be censoring the truth, no matter how offensive it is to some or even many people. There was no consensus to remove the information, so I will add it back. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition Table

100 grams of brazil nuts contain 130 grams of fat? Something about that doesn't feel right... Could someone, who knows better, correct that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.52.199 (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the information was per 200grammes. I followed the link provided in the article and found a list of nutritional info per 100g, and typed that in here Superomelette (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, ftlom, why not make it 65 per 100? That sounds suspiciously high, but incredibly, it seems to be about right; I checked with a few sites, including USDA and the like. Got figures between 60% and 67%. Zap it, say I. Oh. Already done... JonRichfield (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Could the content of testosterone (yes) in brazil nuts be verified? I think earthclinic.com has this information with a suggestion of 1-2 pieces daily for those who may need it. Also, I wonder what the biological availability of such fito hormone would be? ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.44.83 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Brazil nut effect

I agree with removal from where it appears, but suggest taht it should be linked in "See also". It was not my entry, but unless someone provides a sound objection, I'll put it in when I remember. JonRichfield (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I had considered doing that, but its relevance to the article seemed a bit remote except for the name of the effect. After double checking the MOS it appears my thinking was toward relevance for a Further Reading section as opposed to for a See Also section, so if you think that the article would benefit from its re-addition by all means add it back. HMman (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC).

Good, thanks. I always get very itchy about removing valid links or info, but you were undoubtedly correct about the irrelevance of the item to the article as it stood. I have inserted the link into See also and I think this format will be harmless even if no one ever uses the link. Mind you, though I was aware of the effect, I had never heard that name for it and had to look it up myself to see what it was about, so there certainly is a possibility that someone, sometime will benefit!  :-) JonRichfield (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i read that this link speak about planting of trees (I can not add becuase i don't read that languege)

http://sistemasdeproducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/Castanha/CultivodaCastanhadoBrasilRO/index.htm 79.176.152.38 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazil nut. 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/20121002070713/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR21/reports/sr21fg12.pdf to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR21/reports/sr21fg12.pdf

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a useful link; will repair it in the article. --Zefr (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nigger toes" again

Re recent attempts to remove all mention of that epithet from the article. The reference to WP:GRATUITOUS is not applicable because this name and the relating information is not, to paraphrase, in there just for shits and giggles. It is a short but pertinent discussion of the history and current treatment of a widely-used name (see two other section son this talk page for some info about its widespread nature). As such its function is not to aggravate/shock/be-in-there-just-because-we-can, but to provide relevant information pertaining to the topic. We have entire articles on chink, cracker etc.; such content is not unencyclopedic just because it is perceived as offensive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC) - Moved up, see Talk:Brazil_nut#Nigger_toes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There was already a section for this discussion, above. I addressed my point there and nothing you say has convincingly countered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.74.10 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The anonymous user above makes a good point. (By the way, I took the liberty of indenting his response for him/her). Elmidae, if you believe so strongly that this article is more encyclopedic by including reference to nigger toes, then I propose that you add reference to “towel head” to Muslim and “Jewing down” to bargaining. Also, your reference to articles like chink and cracker seems irrelevant to this discussion. Is that a WP:NOTABILITY argument? Because notability guidelines apply to stand-alone articles, not contents of articles. Jam cpa (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Currently (2023), the article reads "gradually fell out of use as the racial slur became socially unacceptable." This is incorrect. The racial slur became unacceptable well before the slang term for the nut did. (Cf. articles cited in previous discussion.) Kdammers (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This can be reworded, obviously. I'll do so now.

Dyanega (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation (Brazil vs brazil)

I'm surprised to see no comment in the Nomenclature section on whether it's "Brazil" or "brazil". The article uses "Brazil" throughout. Moreover, it doesn't seem to have been brought up here – the earlier section is only about "Nut" versus "nut".

Looking on Wiktionary, I've found:

• wikt:Brazil: no mention of the nut (whether it's a nut or not aside), only the country and a city in Indiana
• wikt:brazil: definition is simply "a brazil nut"
• wikt:Brazil nut: given as an alternative spelling of "brazil nut"
• wikt:brazil nut: the primary entry

None of these pages have usage notes. But Wiktionary implies that "brazil nut" is the primary term, which somewhat contradicts what we have here. Dictionaries are split on the matter; moreover, the OUP can't seem to make up its mind:

• Oxford Paperback (2001 edition) has it as "brazil nut", with no mention of any of the other 3 terms.
• The online Oxford Dictionary has it as "Brazil", with 3 definitions (the country, the nut and the wood), with no mention of any of the other 3 terms (though they all redirect to this entry)

Furthermore, I get the impression from various sources that the country is named after the tree, rather than vice versa, thereby supporting the suggestion that it should be "brazil".

I could try and do more research given the time. But for now, what do people think? Should the article be changed to use "brazil"? In any case, there ought to be something in the article addressing the question, so if anybody feels able to write something then please feel free to do so. — Smjg (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

"Nigger toes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nigger toes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 21#Nigger toes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ―NK1406 02:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

DV of Selenium

"Brazil nuts are perhaps the richest dietary source of selenium, with a 28 g (1 oz) serving of six nuts supplying 774% DV. This is 10 times the adult U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance" I moused over DV and R-D-V and got the same definition. So, the way I read this is 774% = 10 times, whis si wrong. Or am I missing some subtlety? Kdammers (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

With this edit, I cleaned up the nutrition section, removed old references and off-topic discussion, and highlighted a selenium section. The DV for selenium is 55 micrograms, shown here. 100 grams of Brazil nuts (a large serving amount) provide 1917 micrograms, whereas a more typical 28 gram (one oz) serving provides 544 micrograms, shown in the USDA table, use pick list), or 544/55 = 10x DV. Zefr (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This would I imagine largely/entirely depend on the soils they were grown in, but may well be true for the typical sources of commercial nuts. Dietary figures tend to be very slack in recognising such factors. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes - Selenium says: "Dietary selenium comes from meat, nuts, cereals and mushrooms. Brazil nuts are the richest dietary source (though this is soil-dependent, since the Brazil nut does not require high levels of the element for its own needs)."

Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)