Talk:Nelumbo nucifera

message: How come there is no mention for the Lotus flower in the ancient egyptian civilization ??  Dr B2 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "lotus" which was significant to ancient Egyptians is actually the water lily.  It's mentioned in the "cultural significance" of the article there. Chuck (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, I've red Denver's book. The drawings there show flowers with very long stems. But I'll remove the info I added about the egyptians.Mismeret (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egyptians 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nelumbo nucifera. 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/20120425063153/http://book.qq.com/zt/2005/ailianshuo/ to http://book.qq.com/zt/2005/ailianshuo/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530074316/http://vietnam-online.org/lotus-symbol-in-vietnamese-culture to http://vietnam-online.org/lotus-symbol-in-vietnamese-culture
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) 22:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nelumbo nucifera. 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/20101202030255/http://www.pitarau.com/indian_baby_names/All/Lotus to http://www.pitarau.com/indian_baby_names/All/Lotus
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) 20:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The entry name or the first or second sentence should include the phrase "like many flowery aquatic plants, commonly called a water lily"2606:6000:669C:4700:2D52:A781:399E:B768 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening/Header/Main Entry 

message: Seeing as all other cultural significances originate in the far east and as this species is not native to the land of Israel or the middle east in general (although its relatives are), the significance in Christianity drew my eye.
After reading the original biblical hebrew version of the two verses brought in the text and the verses before and after, the english translation given seems to be wrong. Original verses:
 (כא) תַּחַת־צֶאֱלִים יִשְׁכָּב בְּסֵתֶר קָנֶה וּבִצָּה׃
 (כב) יְסֻכֻּהוּ צֶאֱלִים צִלֲלוֹ יְסֻבּוּהוּ עַרְבֵי־נָחַל
This seems to be speaking about the place where beasts (as in large four legged animals) live. In the verses, the beast is lying under 'Tsehelim' (the word wrongly translated as lotus) and this is giving its shadow upon it. I think it's obvious that the lotus plant can not give shadow upon cattle, sheep, camals etc.
The word 'Tsehelim' itself quite probably originates in the hebrew word for shadow 'Tsel' and most of the interpretations I read agree that this is either a general word for trees that give shade or the name of a specific tree (that has since been lost in time, either acacia as in contemporary hebrew or ziziphus or some other tree).
So both in terms of distribution and in terms of the text I think it's quite clear that the paragraph about significance for Christianity is wrong.
94.4.255.79 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. You may well be right, but the work above is what Wikipedia calls Original Research and we can't rely upon it according to that policy. However the current text is clearly unsafe. Unless the enormous beasts are hippos, crocodiles etc which could easily get under floating-leaved plants... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance in Christianity seems to be incorrect 

message: I see two unsourced claims, one in the lede and one in the Classification section, about how the lotus is colloquially referred to as a water lily (which scientifically of course is a completely different thing). These seem to have been preserved over several years due to the persistence of one or a few editors. However, I do not see, nor have I been able to find, any source backing these claims up. As WP:NOTFORUM notes, we cannot define our own terms in Wikipedia. As these claims have been up for several years and do not yet have a source, I suggest that they be removed. taulover (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Water lily" isn't a scientific term, & it wasn't hard to find a botanical reference grouping nelumbo as one. So no. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous English-speakers have been using "water lily" and "lotus" interchangeably for centuries, i.e., "blue lotus".--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Btw, regarding the 2nd passage mentioned,  in the Classification section, I don't understand what that is trying to say - is a "blue" missing? Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Apologies for late comment. I have checked the source provided in the current revision of the lede and I am satisfied by the current wording. taulover (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed colloquial synonymity with water lily