Talk:Fruit/Archive 1

Suggestion

It might be clearer to separate this article into two articles, one on fruit (botany) and the other on edible fruits, or the fruit food group. The botany article could have more technical details on fruits in general (edible and non-edible) while the fruit food group could focus on the aspects of edible, agricultural fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.collver (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to split the article into Fruit (botany) and Fruit (food) or Fruit (culinary). --kupirijo (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Fruit

In the interest of balance, wouldn't it be prudent to include a section on the myriad criticisms of fruit. This page is so onesided. Not everyone believes fruit is so friggin' great.

Are you serious? How can you critize something that been around for hundreds of million years? How can you criticize a structure that contains the seeds? Criticing the fruit is like criticizing a female womb.

I'm laughing so hard right now, you've no idea. Never in my life have I even thought of "criticizing" fruit, or heard someone else do it. I mean yeah, sometimes it slips out of your hands and you grumble about it and curse it, you know, "goddamn slippery thing" and whatnot. But to make such a substantial criticism of fruit to warrant a formal "Criticisms of Fruit" section and summary just struck me as instantly hilarious. So anyway yeah, thanks for the laugh guys. 70.180.248.245 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrots as Fruit

The whole carrot as fruit argument seems to be based on some EU trade regulation that considers carrots as fruit for tax purposes. Fact is, the regulation considers carrot JAM in the same category as fruit jams. That is a very different thing. It provides no benefit to users of Wikipedia to take cheap shots at the Europeans for this trivial little bureaucratic item.

There are many, many odd uses of the word fruit. There are many, many erroneous understandings of what fruits are. Some time take a look at Britanica's absurd distinction between a fruit and a vegetable if you really want a laugh.

I removed the rest of the srtice (sic) because it is just a bunch of flaming and arguing and has nothing to do with fruit. (It is commented out but not deleted.) Ashfire908 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types

The article lists "Types of fleshy, simple fruits": "berry", "drupe", "false berry", "pome". It makes these sound mutually exclusive -- are they? Avocado is listed as a berry, but I think the definition makes it sound like a drupe (and other webpages claim it is a drupe). Is it both?

Well, in an ideal world the categories would be mutually exclusive. But fruit terminology moves forward from several schemes, so universal agreement is not yet achieved. However, I do not think an avacado would be a drupe? - Marshman 04:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed avocado from the list of drupes. It is not a drupe. There is no endocarp, which is the defining feature of a drupe. What some interpret as being an endocarp is the seed coat and is not derived from the ovary wall.

Thank you - Marshman

what about strapelbary? or snapelbary are they considered in your list of drupes?

you make me laugh

Should avocado be removed as an example of berry? On the berry page, avocado is listed as not being a true berry, so maybe it shouldn't be listed as one on this page. 71.193.206.170 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Q: whats the deal with fruits w/ pits? Do fruits with pits have their own classification? anyone got anything?

Carrots, lentils, and nuts, oh my!

I'll leave this to the real experts to confirm, but from my amateur point of view, I find it surprising for things like carrots and lentils to be listed as types of fruits. --Ds13 21:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be evident to all that a carrot is a root and not a fruit, and the purpose of listing it otherwise is political — one of the clearest examples available that politicians can and do make decisions without any rational or scientific basis and that Europeans are not superior to anyone else on the planet. But also be clear that lentils and nuts are in fact fruits by all but a culinary definition which seems to require sugar - Marshman 04:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, EU legislation requires preserves to declare the proportion of "fruit". Since there is a Portuguese carrot jam, carrots are defined as a "fruit" for this purpose. I don't believe that the EU classify carrots as fruits in any other circumstances Bluap 12:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my original tirade. Unless you are saying that it is "carrot jam" that is a "fruit" and not carrots. In which case, I find that about as strange; or do you really mean it is carrot jam that is considered a "processed fruit"? ..which does make some sense. - Marshman 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a pointless bit of EU beaurocracy. Jams have to list the proportion of "fruit", and by "fruit" they mean "genuine fruit + carrots". It's supposedly easier to include carrots in the buaurocratic definition of "fruit", than it is to include an exception to the rules for carrot jam. Either way, a carrot is patently not a botanic fruit.

Thanks for clearing that up. The way you put it does make sense. - Marshman 17:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it makes sense on a certain level: the wide differences in definition of "fruit" between botanists and the general public (topic covered in the first paragraph). To the extent that it is not true, it should be corrected or modified. Just to remove it because you have a POV that it is some how political is not right. If the statement is a fact, it should stay in. If it is false, it should be removed. I did not put it in the article so I cannot defend it either way; but for you or anyone to just to go around removing statements that you consider contrary to your political beliefs is POV and vandalism and will not be tolerated at Wikipedia. - Marshman 05:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Fruit Facts

I think the sentence about carrot jam is inane as a part of a primary definition of fruit and cannot understand why mr. marshman insists on putting it back in after I've removed it two or three times. Apparently, mr. marshman learned a piddly little fact at some point and likes to show off that knowledge. That's all it amounts to (other than Eurobashing, which is, of course, very much in favor among certain rightwing American war-hawks and saber-rattlers).

Why not add the fact that fruit is a word used by some American homophobes to describe gay men? It makes as much sense in an article about fruit as does quoting some trivial little bureaucratic expedience as an important point in the overall definition of what a fruit is.

I particularly like the introductory "Indeed" that prefaces this stupid fruit fact of mr. marshman's. Makes it sound as though it's really, really important and oh-so-terribly intellectual. Indeed! Yowzaa! Farfreakingout!

Petty minds love petty little details, and really petty minds love to show off how many petty little details they know. This attitude is what will make wikipedia a joke rather than the important resource it could have been. Fools.

Boy, you are not going to last long around here with that attitude. The "fact" is not mine. I did not add it to the text, and only previously corrected it after suggestion from others with knowledge that the original text was not exactly correct. I therefore now assume it has been reviewed and corrected (i.e., is correct as stated), but I have no real knowledge of that fact. Your problem is an inability to separate POV from fact. If you think it is Eurobashing, that is in your mind. If the statement were untrue, I could support that contention, but apparently you are not at all interested in the truth, only making sure no one is critical of anything your mind presently holds. That is POV and it is not permitted at Wikipedia. I'm sorry your personality does not permit you to participate in this wonderful project. Sorry it did not work out for you; but consider that you can always sneak back in as a real person once you grow up. - Marshman 04:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't call me Boy. If I'm male, which you don't know, it's demeaning (and insulting (of course that doesnt' seem to bother you, apparently you like demeaning others as you insist on poking fun at the Portuguese) and if I'm female it even worse. If you go around calling anyone you disagree with "Boy" someone is going to rearrange major parts of your anatomy some day. Of course, you only do it from your keyboard, where you're safe from real retribution, isn't that right, Marsh? And, it's not attitude. It's an objection to foolishness. This is a dumb fact that has no relevance to what a fruit is. Giving it prominence diminishes and trivializes what you say is a wonderful project. Might as well add something about slot machines being called fruit machines in the UK or Fruit of the Loom underwear. It's totally irrelevant to a definition of fruit and certainly does not belong in the introductory paragraph.

Sorry, I forgot you are not American. "Boy" is used at the start of a sentence in the same sense as "Whew" or "Wow" or similar. However, having said that, I consider your attitude abusive and will no longer duscuss the matter with you. It is not my "fact" and it is really no longer even an issue. The problem has become your vandalizing pages at Wikipedia and taking an abusive and threatening stance when you can not have your way. You need to read the rules that govern behavior around here (or in society in general) before continuing as a contributor - Marshman

Oh, that's right. I missed the rule that says it's ok to poke fun at others just so you can show off your command of meaningless trivia. I also missed the rule that says it's ok to use patently racist forms of address because it's the AMERICAN thing to do Let's unfurl the stars and stripes, and raise a hearty red white and blue salute to all those good-ol'boy-racist epithets that make america great. What's wrong with you anyway? Doesn't it embarass you to be such a prig and such an obvious racist? Or is that, too, another AMERICAN value dear to your heart?

To the anonymous editor who is rabidly protective of the EU and who sees Eurobashing American conspiracies in every corner, let me reassure you that the term "boy", as used by Marshman, is not a term of address at all (like "Sir" or "Mister") but rather an interjection (like "golly" or "wow"). It thus could not be pereceived as racist by anyone fluent in the English language, or familiar with American English. We forgive you for your confusion. Regards, Babajobu 11:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting aspect of the anonymous contributor is that he/she is living in central California and using the UC Davis computer system. I thought at first I had simply touched the nerve of a poor English speaker. But I do not think that is the case. I think it is simply a person who would rather "fight" than do anything else. - Marshman 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UC Davis is the premier agricultural school in California and is world recognized for their agricultural research. You may well have stepped on the toes of a Professor in the School of Agriculture or Botany or such. Or perhaps a lowly grad student :P Judging on the manner of speech I would put my money on the former. -JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.50 (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this sever is for learning not fighting ! (I hate fruit fly's!!)

jesus the person who is getting all worked up about somone calling them a boy (wich isnt true they arent) you really need to calm down jesus and stop wanting to fight cu it's not ganna work u will be banned probly if u keep on doing that

I think that it's really sad how many people take part in these arguments

Actually, I think boy in this context ("Boy, you are not going to last long around here with that attitude.") is ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted either way by someone perfectly fluent in the English language and American slang, but Marshman's explanation was reasonable and ought to have been accepted. Apparently carrots and fruits are fightin' words 'round these parts. Hilarious. TheScotch (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seedless Fruits

Good addition. I deleted most of the links because it is general "rule" around here that words are linked only once in an article. I think there are logical exceptions to this rule, such as certain technical terms. As a "newbie" I encourage you to read the variouis style pages available. Styles are not absolute rules but they greatly reduce editing conflicts and help to make sure that your valuable contributions are not (at the same time) making work for other editors - Marshman 20:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

doing this wouled stop things like the article about carrets that was a disaster!

but it was kind of fun seeing how far some people will go to prove a point. Not only did people argue in the article about carrets but in the fruit facts one to.....wow.

Carrot jam

Carrot jam is not a popular portuguese dish!!! I'm portuguese, I know that!... Manuel Anastácio 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my Googling of carrot jam turns up a couple Iranian companies that make it, a Danish recipe, and a comment about how it was a Victorian-era tea-time spread. I don't know Portuguese, but Babelfish spits out "atolamento da cenoura", and that only gets 32 results. Rewrote it (and fixed the sentence structure to match the previous one). Someone else can change it if they have substantial reason to believe that it has a strong Portuguese connection. FireWorks 19:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "Carrot Jam" Portugal gives nearly 100 hits, including some tourist sites, and some message boards talking about the EU "fruit" regulation. Nothing definitive, though. Bluap 16:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge?

Someone suggested Fruit and List of fruits should be merged. The "List of" articles in wikipedia is designed to make articles more readible by off-loading some of the reference stuffs elsewhere. A merge is going the wrong direction. Unless there is another reason I am not aware of, I vote not to merge. Kowloonese 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read list of fruits there is a lot of valuable information and links to fruits. I think it would be a good idea to merge.--βjweþþ (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems like a bad idea IMO. --81.159.49.94 16:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pollinator 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the points of not merging so I have added a small link at the top.--Bjwebb (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point to merging. I'm with Kowloonese. --Mr. Billion 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expert opinion and specialistic reference needed at Talk:Vegetable

Hi there, can somebody shed some light on the current dispute at Talk:Vegetable? In a nutshell, are all fruits vegetables? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 18:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but in a nutshell, all nuts are fruit. Fishhead64 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farming

Do we have an article on the farming of fruit? Pcb21 Pete 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husks

Is the "husk" (protective outer covering) of some fruits (e.g. corn, walnut) actually part of the fruit or a separate structure that develops with the fruit? SCHZMO ✍ 21:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seed dissemination?

Is the seed dissemination section accurate? It lists burrs and dandelion seeds as fruit as well as "helicopters".22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A reference to an animal carrying seeds in their gut is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689670/ and can be added to the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit#Seed_dissemination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.35.65 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit vs. vegetable

I've deleted this paragraph:

Some have falsely asserted that the distinction between fruit and vegetable is made based on whether the plant material ripens or rots when detached from the plant root system (whether woody or vine based stem). This theory is simplistic and without merit. Pumpkins, cucumbers, hen fap, eggplant, blueberries and many other fruits do not ripen when detached from the root system.

For one thing, who are the "some" who assert this? Otherwise, I don't really see the point of this rather odd commentary. MrDarwin 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:DFRTurnipTrophy.jpg

Viva fruit n' vegetable potral!

A plant, botanically is consist of three parts. Root, vegetative (vegetable) and fruit (reproductive structure). Anything on a plant that is below ground is automatically a root (carrot, potato, ginger); any structure of a plant that bears seeds is a fruit (cucumber, tomato, pepper, pumpking); and anything that is above ground and does not bear any fruit is a vegetative (also known as vegetable) such as lettuce, rubarb, herbs, cellery stalk, etc. Nuts and legumes are consider a fruit; but a subcategory of a fruit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.146.130 (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above classification system for the parts of plants is not very scientifically useful. Some plants have fruits that develop under the soil surface and others have roots above the soil surface. Botanists classify different plant structures by anatomy and not their location. Hardyplants (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

I am damn ashamed that we do not have a Fruit and Vegetable potral. Could someone perhaps more venerable than me start one? Thanks, Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 08:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetables "Section"

Can we just delete this section? Its seems unacademic: "vegetables are in the family of fruits". What family would that be? Fruitaceae? Plus, having a whole section with only two sentances doesn't seem to be worth it. I also don't like the sentence "They are indeed a subcategory". Given the (ridiculous) passion with which people fight over the fruit/veggie topic, its seems like someone is just trying to get their jab in here. I don't want to be the one to remove it, since I'm a new wikipedian and not really involved in this debate. Thoughts? FoiledAgain 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a silly comment that snuck in unnoticed. I've deleted it. MrDarwin 20:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

As part of Danny's third contest, I have added a thorough sourcing to this article, which previously had no sources. I think it helps the article a lot. Just tooting my own horn here. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is awesome. An example to us all. Now, all we need is another 200 contributors to finish today's slate of featured articles... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA concern: Prose

"It will also be seen that many common terms for seeds and fruit are incorrectly applied, a fact that complicates understanding of the terminology." This sentence is vague, wordy, and awkward. I recommend a through copy-edit for usage, grammar, and style. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Fail

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Fail

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

I feel more words should be wikilinked especially in the Fruit development section.
I think such a section as Simple fruit should be expanded to include a short paragraph pertaining to each type of simple fruit and what categories do the simple fruits fall in (dehiscent or indehiscent).
Three basic and necessary sections are missing and they are History of the word, Etymology of the word and History of fruits breeding how they were created (such as the tomato, the different types of apples, the apple-pear or such).
I would also bring in some dictionary definitions.
Also, like the prior section mentions, a copyedit should be undertaken to remove any lengthy lines. Lincher 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot of work that the article needs to have in order to be of GA status and to achieve that maybe the on hold procedure isn't that good but I guess if someone wants to talk it out, just drop by my talk page. Lincher 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed

The article didn't incorporate or try to add the material requested during the on hold period to become a good article. Upon that, there are still unmet criterion and the article needs improvement before it is brought back to GA candidacy.

I have also downgraded the V0.5 assessment to B-class for there are lots of subjects not covered by this article. Lincher 11:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit

I think it's important to include that when fruit fall to the ground, they provide certain nutirents to teh soil which are important for germination of the seeds they contain. Markbri16 12:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tutti Frutti

Really? Is this see also really needed? Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing fruit

Sloe appears to be missing. Would have been helpful for my crossword puzzle today. 66.108.204.239 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.1.8 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error in production section

Fruit Production Table

The fruit production table lists only production of "not elsewhere specified" fruits, i.e. minor fruits. The United States, for example, is a major producer of fruits such as apples, which aren't included in the figures. I think this table should be removed, or at least annotated. Otherwise, it is extremely misleading.

Very misleading. The tables listed are for fruit "not elsewhere specified". This table excludes all major fruits. For example, the table lists India having a 2005 production in metric tons of 6.6 million. But in 2005 China produced 25 MT of apples, and 65 MT of watermelons. These and many others are not included in the calculations. These tables have been misread and misapplied not only in this article but also in many others, such as North Korea. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.46.68 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above posters are EXACTLY correct. If you link to the site you can see that these totals are for NES fruit (Not Elsewhere Specified). The tropical one is wrong too (it is also tropical, NES). North Korea probably doesn't break up their numbers; leading to everything being NES. This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.4.10 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Fruit After Pollination

What drives the development of a fruit -- its growth in size and weight -- after pollination ? Presumably the fruit utilizes exclusively or primarily phloem sap since the fruit is a store for carbohydrates.

What would happen were a fruit to be "suitably physically disconnected" from its plant stem and instead supplied with its sort of phloem sap "by appropriate means" ? Of course, there is a lot riding on those "quotes" -- but I am trying to get an interesting -- and even a practical -- discussion started here. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.249.106 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of cuisine usage section

I removed the "Cuisine usage" section because there was nothing in there that wasn't already said in the more detailed and better written subsequent section on botanical vs. culinary usage. There was also a random paragraph on pollination just hanging out in the cuisine usage section. It doesn't fit anywhere else in the article but it doesn't even warrant its own section. Anyway, here it is in its entirety, maybe someone can find somewhere for it later.-Jaardon (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With most cultivated fruits, pollination is a vital part of fruit culture, and the lack of knowledge of pollinators and pollenizers can contribute to poor crops or poor quality crops. In a few species, the fruit may develop in the absence of pollination/fertilization, a process known as parthenocarpy.^[1] Such fruits are seedless. A plant that does not produce fruit is known as acarpous, meaning "without fruit".^[2]

References

^ Spiegel-Roy, P. (August 28 1996). The Biology of Citrus. Cambridge University Press. pp. pp. 87-88. ISBN 0-521-33321-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Schlegel. Encyclopedic Dictionary. pp. p. 5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Is a nut a fruit or not a fruit?

I must be missing something here. In the section Botanic fruit and culinary fruit the second paragraph starts "Although a nut is a type of fruit..." However, in the section Fruit development the second paragraph ends with the sentence containing "...in botanical terminolgy, a nut is not a type of fruit..." In the Wiki article Nut (fruit) the section Botanical definition says a nut is a fruit: "A nut in botany is a simple dry fruit with one seed (rarely two)..." I can't be the only person that saw this obvious contradiction.Mvaugeri (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I've removed it.74.33.174.133 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization info is needed

as indicated at

the article of Vegetable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.211.152 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC) CORN IS NOT A FRUIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.207.12 (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venn diagram has evolved

Completed Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please update with version found at vegetable. Thanks. 122.26.105.245 (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to candied fruit please

THanks 205.228.104.142 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corn not a vegetable?

File:Fruitnveg-3.png

New diagram, corn is apparently not a vegetable.

I think the new Venn diagram contradicts the vegetable article, as well as common sense. Isn't sweetcorn a vegetable? 205.228.104.142 (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I understand it. Sweet corn is a vegetable in the informal sense, but field corn is not. The diagram probably intends to depict field corn.--Fartherred (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, corn is a vegetable however you want to see it: on the cob, sweet, baby, whatever. All vegetables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.8.206.14 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say sweet corn is a culinary vegetable and a botanical fruit. I disagree with the classification of strawberries, figs and pineapples as not being botanical fruit. Even when operating in an extremely technical sense, accessory FRUITS (strawberries) and multiple FRUITS (pineapples) are still kinds of fruit, although some plant tissue that isn't fruit (in the narrowest possible sense of the term fruit) is associated with the fruit tissue. If fruit is being defined so narrowly as to exclude strawberries and pineapples, than pears (also pictured) aren't fruit either, as much of the flesh is derived from the hypanthium rather than the ovary. 192.104.39.2 (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the entry in Talk:vegetable. To avoid duplication, I propose that we continue the debate over there. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, the "new diagram" also claims that strawberries, pineapples, and figs are not botanical fruit, which is nonsense. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation in Talk:vegetable has been archived, so this one is more of the active convo for this topic.PrecociousPeach (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self citation -- improper?

Someone recently added a paragraph to Fruit describing and citing a published paper they themself wrote. Is this against policy? —Levana Taylor (via posting script) 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a diff of what you are referring to? It would be easier to reply to a specific. In general, I would tend to see such a situation as presenting problems with WP:COI and perhaps with WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is that of Pawanexh Kohli at 10:16,28 September 2009. Since it was published by someone other than Pawanexh Kohli, I would think it is acceptable. That does depend upon whether the publisher is reputable.--Fartherred (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact nature of a reliable source that is acceptable varies somewhat from one type of subject matter to another. Those who are competent to make substantial contributions to "Fruit" should be the ones to decide by discussion and tradition the fine details of acceptability for this topic.--Fartherred (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I understand. I looked carefully at that edit. Basically, I think it is acceptable, particularly in that the passage links to another WP page that explains the underlying concept, and that page appears to be well-sourced and edited by many editors other than Mr. Kohli. (On the other hand, that page has an external link by that editor that appears to me to be clearly linkspam, although I myself am not going to revert it.) The passage here was written a little awkwardly, so I have copyedited it. Overall, I'd rather see editors who want to provide their own published material propose their edits in talk, and allow other editors to decide whether or not to make the edit, rather than just putting it in themselves, but that's best practices rather than mandatory policy. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification from a Botanist Perspective

I noticed that there are confusion about fruits, veggies, and roots, etc. I hope to contribute to my knowledge and help all settle some confusion here. There are 3 botanical culinary part of a plant. The fruit, above ground vegetative (vegetable), and below ground vegetative (erronously lable as 'roots').

A fruit is a broad term, its refer to any structure of a plant that contains the seeds. A fruit is divided among 3 category - fleshy fruits, nuts and legumes. Fleshy fruits are the most easily identifiable, are fruits that has a thin surface layer with a fleshy portion as seen in apples, oranges, tomato, cucumber, pepper banana, etc. Nuts are also fruits, with a hard-covering protective cap, although lack the fleshy portion, it does have seeds - the characteristic of a nut is a hard-covering outer-shell with a SINGLE seed such as chestnut, hazel nut, walnut, etc. A legumes is also a fruit, very similar to nut, but have AT LEAST 2 or more nuts within the enclose hard covering, examples are peanut, soybean, pea, etc. A fruit can be below or above ground depending on the species. Grain, sunflower seeds, and corn kernels are also known as fruit - because it does contain the seed which would develop into embryo and into a new plant.

Above ground vegetative is the same as a vegetable, but refer to as above ground portion of the plant that does not include the fruit structure such as stalk, leaf - cellery, spinish, rhubarb, onion leaf, some spices.

Below ground vegetative is refer to parts of the plant that grow below the ground and does not contain reproductive structures. Underground vegetative are known for their high content of fat, protein and starch (which are naturally needed for embryo development). Simply calling it roots are botanical erronous - since not everything below ground is a root. Rhizome isn't consider a root, but a stem growing underground. Example of underground vegetative are potato, carrots, radish, onion, ginger root, etc.

I hope this might clarify any particular confusion regarding 'roots', vegetable and fruits. Of course, this is only a generalization - parts of a plant is heck of a lot more specialize then what I described. REDSoC (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your taking the time, but without references your mini-essay is worth a fraction of what it could be. 118.8.206.14 (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he needs a reference for common knowledge. Some things don't need reference if its common knowledge. 9/11 occur in 2001 - its common knowledge, you don't need a reference for that.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Tory (talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were common knowledge, then there wouldn't be any value in his having written it. As he said at the beginning, he wrote it because of the apparent confusion over the subject, in order to provide clarification, not because he thought it was common knowledge.—Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone (with botanical knowledge) please fix wikipedia so it makes sense? Either a seed is a fruit, or there is some distinction between a seed and a fruit. I suspect botanists wouldn't have the term fruit if it meant the same thing as seed <sarcasm intended>. Wiki says "legumes" are "fruits" and "fruits" contain "seeds." And, it says "chick peas" are "legumes." As far as I can tell, the peas are the seeds. So if legumes are fruits, then they are the pods. And no one eats chick pea pods (that I know of). So by this definition you don't eat legumes (in the case of chick peas)--you eat the seeds of legumes. Mdlayt (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chickpea. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

Since a fruit is either simple, aggregate, or multiple -- mutually exclusive as I understand it -- then how can magnolia be both simple and multiple? I suspect the answer is that magnolia fruits are multiple, not simple. I'm wondering whether milkweed fruits are also multiple, which would leave the article without an example of simple fruits of type follicle. Eugenwpg (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it more clear by moving that section away from the multiple fruit heading. They are collections of follicles and not multiple fruits. The article needs a lot of work yet in the area of describing the different fruits. Hardyplants (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion has only grown. When one fruit is formed from multiple flowers then isn't such a collection a multiple fruit? If it isn't then the article Multiple_fruit also needs revision. Hmm, it seems to need some either way. Eugenwpg (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The type of fruits we are talking about form from one flower, though they may have multiple pistils. Hardyplants (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're now saying they are neither simple nor multiple, but are aggregate fruits? And here I thought that one of the kinds we started with would be correct:-) Eugenwpg (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm still trying to learn what kind of fruit the milkweeds make, which is what brought me here in the first place; what the various sources agree on about milkweed fruits appears to be full of contradictions, and my guess is that they are multiple fuits although unable to find any reputable source that comes right out and says so. Eugenwpg (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are simple, being derived from a single pistils. Multiple fruits derive from collections of different flowers. Milk weed fruits come from one pistil and split open along one suture and are thus follicles. What might be confusing is that the pistil is compound, divided into two carpels - so after flowering if both sides of the ovary are pollinated the flower will generate two follicles. Hardyplants (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what I find confusing is that a milkweed plant typically has many clusters of small flowers, each cluster having some 100 or so flowers; later the plant will have just a few fruits, but each fruit will contain some 50 or so seeds. And that's what made me wonder whether one large fruit (as in http://parvumopus.blogspot.com/2009/10/milkweed-pod.html) might correspond to an entire cluster of flowers. BTW, here is one online source, a google-books result, that says Asclepias have multiple fruits: http://books.google.ca/books?id=DeQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=%22multiple+fruits%22+Asclepias&source=bl&ots=yzTRHB1ZeI&sig=brD3iJednR5YvGeuW-cGU3uRMBg&hl=en&ei=0FMTS9lO1NicB4-gsMYD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw That book by Arthur Henfrey appears to be saying that a milkweed fruit is a multiple fruit that consists of follicles. Eugenwpg (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of their pollination, very few milkweed flowers are pollinated. Each pod is from one ovary, since each flower has twoovaries - two pods can be produced, but note that the pods are not fused together into an aggregate but are just joined at the base. All the seeds in one pod come from the same ovary and most likly from the same pollination event (the pollen is deposited in a large collection of grains). "that says Asclepias have multiple fruits:" they mean "many" fruits instead of multiple fruits each pod is one fruit, not a collection of different fruits into one structure. Hardyplants (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When time permits I will get rid of the current terms used and replace them with apocarpous, syncarpous and aggregate fruits, since they are more clear terminology-wise for the three broad classes of fruits instead of simple and multiple. Hardyplants (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the patient explanation. And the revised definitions have solved the problem with some of the simple seemingly belonging in aggregate. Eugenwpg (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Tomatos"

"Tomatos" should be "Tomatoes". I'd fix it but the article is locked. jww1066 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww1066 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fences&Windows 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhubarb as fruit

Here and possibly elsewhere, there is a claim to the sense that "rhubarb is sometimes regarded as a fruit" because it can be used in sweet pies and jams". Is this a correct account of the facts? Or is it simply that recipes for rhubarb pies and jams are sometimes listed in the "fruit dishes" chapter of cookboks? (I don´t have access to the only reference given.) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Noob here but this seems like such rubbish to me that I had to chirp in: "rhubarb is often referred to as a fruit". The citation is unconvincing, it only refers to the single sentence: "Rhubarb is a vegetable that often masquerades as a fruit". This is almost certainly a reference to the similarity between how rhubarb is used in cooking with certain fruit (think jams and pies), and does not suggest that it is "referred to" as one. The only other possible reason for keeping this is one classification in a single country for taxation purposes which seems like another case of "carrot jam" as mentioned above, again due to bureaucracy surrounding the manner in which it is used rather than anything to do with nomenclature (see Rhubarb main article). This all seems to suggest that rhubarb is not regarded as a fruit at all, despite being sometimes used like one. Could it please be removed? TheForthright (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Use of "fruits" for the plural form strikes me as odd; here is one example of many: "Fruits (in either sense of the word) are the means by which many plants disseminate seeds." I think this would be better rendered as "Fruit (in either sense of the word) is the means by which many plants disseminate seeds." Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philu (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a linguist who specializes in that sort of question. He says that it is a matter of style. If you want to emphasize that different types of plants have different types of those things, then use the plural form. Also, if you want to emphasize that the individual items disperse individually, then use the plural form. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS A RARE FRUIT IN SLOVAKIA NAMED CHISS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameismacy (talk • contribs) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Venn diagram

{{editsemiprotected}}

Venn diagram was removed by User:Nadiatalent. Please restore, and/or discuss here, people put considerable effort in it. What needs fixing exactly? Was the original diagram (on the right) less "plain wrong"? Thanks. 114.149.16.11 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should replace the label "Fruit" with "Botanical fruit"? 118.7.230.34 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removal was stated "multiple fruits are botanical fruits". The strawberry, fig, and pineapple ARE botanical fruits. I really can't explain this more clearly. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "original diagram" with pear, apricot, and tomato as fruits, tomato also as vegetable, no "botanical fruit" category, is correct. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Can we reintroduce it then please? the original caption was "Venn diagram representing the relationship between (culinary) vegetables and (botanical) fruits. Some vegetables, such as tomatoes, fall into both categories." I'm open to reasonable variations thereof. Thanks. 114.148.208.56 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I feel a little bullied right now. User Nadiatalent doesn't seem to oppose the reintroduction of the diagram, nor do other editors. The reason why this page is semiprotected is vandalism. I am not proposing to introduce vandalism, or a controversial change that will be reverted on sight. I am only trying to edit the article like I used to (remember, anyone can edit?), having discussed the change first on this page, meeting no opposition. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it's certainly turning into one. What is missing exactly to have a consensus? 118.7.226.190 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make a signon for yourself and work like a regular Wikipedia editor? Nadiatalent (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my opinion on this. File:Fruitnveg-3.png is unacceptable; File:Fruitnveg.png is okay, but doesn't add much to the article, it makes a big deal of a small matter, the legal status in the U.S. of tomatoes as vegetables. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Spigot Map 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... this is not helping my impression that I am being bullied.

The facts as I see them are as follows: Nadiatalent removed the new diagram, claiming it was wrong. I think we have a consensus on this - also judging from other older comments. However, there is no consensus that I can see that the old diagram should be removed. Nor I can see a request from any user, including Nadiatalent, to have that removed. All Nadiatalent is saying (now) is that the old diagram doesn't add much to the article, which I disagree with and it can be discussed until consensus is reached - and the onus of reaching one would be on her. In the meantime, the previous diagram should be restored, as it has been in this article with no complaint (and some praise) for years. 118.7.226.190 (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try becoming a regular editor, you might discover that there are advantages. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, I am a regular editor. Do you mean a registered editor? Please let's stick to the topic. 118.7.226.190 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't take a hint, I really can't help you. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I can become auto-confirmed in 4 days, but I don't think this is how semi-protection and {{editsemiprotected}} are supposed to work. Thank you anyway. 118.7.226.190 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple diagram doesn't seem to really add anything to the article that can't be said in words. The other diagram containing "botanic" fruits can be very disputed and will lead to edit wars. They add nothing constructive to the article and could be viewed as original research. Spigot Map 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No diagram adds anything that can't be said in words. The original diagram is not original research, because it's not in contradiction with sourced statements that are already in the article. It also adds a lot more value than any of the 5 (five) images in the article depicting arrangements of edible fruits. This seems increasingly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you prefer to push down the entire section + diagram that's fine by me. 118.7.226.190 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict with IP; presenting edit without change) No-one is under any obligation to register an account, and unregistered contributors should be treated no differently than any other contributors.

There's no dispute that Fruitnveg-3.png is out; the question is whether to re-introduce the original diagram. Personally I think it expresses the relationship between the categories more elegantly and simply than can words alone. The amount of discussion on this talk page and at Talk:Vegetable suggests many people are interested in this matter, and the diagram gets the point across to readers in an instant. I don't see a WP:OR issue as the article contains citations that support all the informational content of the diagram, so there's no novel synthesis involved; I see this as comparable to someone drawing an original diagram of a biochemical pathway or a human organ, which describes many featured pictures.

Having said that, I think the diagram could be improved in two ways: the labels could be changed to the more precise "culinary vegetables" and "botanical fruits", and one more item could be added to the overlapping section, clarifying that tomatoes are not uniquely exceptional.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm happy to try and implement any consensual improvements to the diagram. 118.7.226.190 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm not overly familiar with the subject as I came here by edit request, but the solution provided by User:Adrian J. Hunter sounds reasonable. Spigot Map 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the "original diagram" on the vegetable page, replacing the one that misrepresented botany. Does it really need to be in both places? I have no objection to the suggestions from Adrian J. Hunter. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is equally relevant to both articles and it should stay in both, I would argue more duly so than this image should feature both in Fruit and Bartolomeo Bimbi, for example. 114.146.89.169 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the labels as suggested by Adrian J. Hunter. I have not added another fruit in the intersection because that's a lot harder and I don't have time now. Note that neither changes were considered prerequisites by anyone involved for the reintroduction of the uncontentiuos original diagram. I have changed the diagram at Vegetable. I would do it here too, but the page is semi-protected. Please restore this in the article, as there seems to be no consensus to its removal. Thanks. 122.26.74.85 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the advantage of living in a multicultural city, I was able to ask friends whose cultural backgrounds make a strong distinction between culinary "greens" and culinary "vegetables". They tell me that green peas and green beans are considered "vegetables" rather than "greens". If someone is able to and wants to add the image of green pea pods back into the diagram in the area of intersection between "culinary vegetables" and "botanical fruits", that would make it more interesting, and I'd be happy to see the diagram added back to the fruit page. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep coming up with new reasons why you want to remove this diagram without consensus. Allow me to summarize them:

"It doesn't add much to the article" - It adds a lot more than any one of the - oh look, now it's 6 (six) different edible fruit arrangements we have in the article
"It makes a big deal of a small matter, the legal status in the U.S. of tomatoes as vegetables" - This diagram is not just about legal status, and as Adrian J. Hunter also pointed out, the subject is of proven interest to other readers and editors alike
"Does it really need to be in both places [i.e. Vegetable and Fruit]?" - Yes, because it is equally relevant to both
and now, apparently, after filtering some irrelevance in your comment, you don't want it in the fruit article because it does not contain pea pods.

You have indicated in a couple of occasions that you would not revert my reintroduction of the unmodified digram if I were to become an autoconfirmed user. Yet, you refuse to do that on my behalf despite my explicit requests.

I still request that someone kindly reintroduce the diagram (with new labels), and then we can open a new section in this talk page discussing any improvements, which I may be able to help with, without prejudice to the diagram remaining in place unless a consensus to its removal is formed.

You are also welcome to try and form such consensus, in another section, but please once again note that at the moment we don't have one.

Thank you. 123.225.158.115 (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? 114.148.237.119 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 205.228.108.58 (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Sublimehypocrisy, 17 December 2010

The fruit page mentions plants only. However, there is another example of a fruit.

When a fungus grows to the point that it can produce spores, the portion of the fungus that contains the spores, or fungus seeds, is considered the fruiting body of the fungus.

Currently, the fruit page only gives information about plants being fruits but even the fungus Wikipedia article states that the mushroom is the fruiting body of a fungus. I hope someone can confirm the validity of my claim.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/560984/sporophore Sublimehypocrisy (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I don't see why not. ~ Matthew ^{Say hi!}_{How I've helped} 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really though, a fungus is not a fruit for the purpose of this article. Referring to the outer growth of some fungi as "fruiting bodies" does not make them a fruit. Frankly, the inclusion of fungus in the sentence noting footnote 2 is fundamentally incorrect; the arguement is made "in the botanical sense" of the definition, botany is the study of plant life, fungi are a whole other kingdom. Defining a mushroom as a fruit because it has a fruiting body is the equivalent to defining a placental mammal as fruit because it is called "fruit of the womb". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottlais (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

Ovary directs to ovary for animals while it shoud be to plants of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.155.146 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now fixed. Thanks for pointing it out and welcome to Wikipedia! jonkerz ♠ 12:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

evolutionary purpose of poisonous fruit

Manchineel is an poisonous tree that produces sweet tasting fruit that will kill you. What is the evolutionary purpose of poisonous fruit, if the purpose of fruit in the first place is to persuade animals to eat it and disseminate the seeds? This article can benefit from a discussion of that. There are all sorts of poisonous berries too...Badon (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the fruit would not be poisonous to the species that the plant "wants" to consume it. But we'd need suitable reference(s). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they evolved in such a way because the plant did not want animals to consume the fruit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.45.150 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 1 November 2011

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

Given the whole dilema surrounding the definition of fruit verses vegetable, I think the definition of a fruit in horticulture deserves a place on this page just as the culinary definition/classification does; possibly helping to bridge the two. Horticulturalists take the definition or requirements to be a fruit a few steps further than botanists. Besides being a fleshy vessel containing seeds, a fruit must also grow on a woody plant--basically, a plant that lives longer than one year. There are also many more categories of fruits. Someone who has access to editing this page should look into it.

Gabeknapton (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks for your suggestion, but it is best to discuss your suggestions here, as this is the place to propose improvements or changes to the article, but {{edit semi-protected}} should only be used when you want something specific to be changed. If you think of something, feel free to use the template again. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sources would be used for this. The request seems to indicate that strawberries are not fruit because the plant they grow on is not woody (and certainly not the varieties that are grown from seed annually). Garden huckleberries, Solanum scabrum, and several other species of Solanum would also seem to be non-fruits. The "many more categories of fruit" is also a mystery to this botanist. Sorry. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a good source for this. I've never found a formal definition of horticultural fruits & vegetables, but I've suspected the distinction existed since I discovered that Oklahoma had declared watermelons to be the state vegetable. At one point, the National Watermelon Promotion Board had a "Fun Fact" for kids stating that "watermelon is actually a vegetable", although they currently discuss both sides of the fruit/vegetable issue (http://www.watermelon.org/Fruit-or-Vegetable.aspx). For the NWPB, watermelon is a horticultural vegetable because it's grown as an annual, not because it's not woody. Most culinary fruits are produced by woody perennials, so a horticultural fruit category based on one of these attributes seems plausible.

Adding a horticultural definition of fruit of course raises more ambiguous plants. Strawberries are non-woody, perennial on a home garden scale, but annual on a commercial scale. Rhubarb is not a botanical fruit or woody, but is perennial and is arguably a culinary fruit. Cucurbits are all non-woody annuals producing botanical fruits, which are culinary vegetables (cucumbers), culinary fruits (melons), or both (pumpkins in soup or pie, watermelon flesh or rind). The distinctions between horticultural and culinary fruits really start to break down when tropical plants are considered. Avocados are considered culinary vegetables by some. Some tropical Physalis & Solanum produce culinary fruits but are horticultural vegetables. Bananas are culinary fruit, and perennial but non-woody (are plantains culinary vegetables?). There are numerous fairly obscure tropical culinary vegetables that are perennials, both herbaceous and woody (e.g. Cnidoscolus chayamansa).

I'm somewhat inspired to see if a trade organization or government agency presents a definition of fruit and vegetable from a horticultural perspective. The NWPB does have a citation defining watermelons as a vegetable, but the source is missing from their bibliography. USDA breeding programs might well distinguish between plants maturing in a single season and propagated from seed (vegetables) from those maturing over several years and often propagated clonally (fruit).Plantdrew (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't different legal entities decide individually whether a particular product is a fruit or vegetable, for individual practical reasons such as fulfilling a requirement to feed school children some specified number of servings of vegetables while keeping the producers of a particular (possibly not-very-nutritive) product happy?Nadiatalent (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential refs

Boffetta, P. et al. “Fruit and vegetable intake and overall cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2010),102(8):529-537.
Chong, M.F.-F. et al. ”Fruit polyphenols and CVD risk: a review of human intervention studies”, British Journal of Nutrition (2010),104(Suppl. 3):S29-S39.
González-Gallego, J. et al. ”Fruit polyphenols, immunity and inflammation”, British Journal of Nutrition (2010),104(Suppl. 3):S15-S27.
Wakai, K. et al. “Lung Cancer Risk and Consumption of Vegetables and Fruit: An Evaluation Based on a Systematic Review of Epidemiological Evidence from Japan”, Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology (2011),41(5):693-708.

--Ronz (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

These reviews are meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The reviews are placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The reviews and clinical trials in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, they are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and they are published in academic journals. Granateple (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fungus

"In biology (botany), a "fruit" is a part of a flowering plant that derives from specific tissues of the flower, [...] On the other hand, the botanical sense includes many structures that are not commonly called "fruits", such as .... the section of a fungus that produces spores."

The last clause should be deleted, since fungi aren't flowering plants (or the "botanical" definition changed so as to include fungi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.143.117 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. Nadiatalent (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Fruits

The last paragraph in this section has been copied and pasted from the Multiple fruit page. It refers to an image that does not exist on this page.

No changes made Kibi78704 (talk) 11:27, 10 July, 2012 (CDT) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

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

Hello. Could you consider adding a timelapse video of strawberry growth to appropriate section? It should nicely demonstrate the growth and formation of the fruit. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strawberry_growth_(Video).webm Frooxius (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2014 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the edit request is not a "change X to Y" format"-request, but a request to add material, the answer by Technical 13 seems to me to be misguided at best and at worst bitey towards a new editor that has put some obvious effort into making a timelapse video.

Frooxius, I'll add the video to Strawberry. I know nothing about video production, I would not be surprised if it's a bitch to get perfect; are there ways to get rid of the odd framing, the flashing (night frames?), and the "stutter" (in lack of better word)? Anyway, thanks for your effort. I'll post you a welcome message. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, I didn't mean to request specific change, only suggest that material I have contributed to Wikimedia Commons might be useful/relevant to the article (the portion that talks about formation of aggregate fruits).

Sam Sailor Thank you for adding it to strawberry. Yes, I've actually removed most night frames (only in the second part (after the flower petals fall off), which is speeded up more than the first one, so cutting 12 hours or so doesn't make obvious jumps, for comparison here's speeded up footage without night frames removed and no stabilization - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19iCo7IH2c4 ) and applied some filters to decrease the difference in lightning, but the conditions still change (sun moves, goes behind cloud, it gets completely cloudy and rain and such). For stable lightning I would probably have to shoot indoors with some powerful lamp instead of sunlight (the ones for growing plants indoors). I can try to "blend" frames though to see if it helps (although that might cause some blur).

I'm not sure what exactly are you referring to by 'stutter'. I could upload a longer version (less speeded up) which could help as it's not changing so violently, although then the growth isn't that apparent/pronounced. Frooxius (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

most popular fruit crops

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

For the section "Production" I propose the addition of the following information:

"The most popular fruit crops worldwide are bananas (102 million metric tons in 2012, +37 million tons of plantains), followed by apples (76), grapes (67), and oranges (62).^[1]" --91.40.140.90 (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could find a source for 2014? It might be better to have more recent statistics, but if not I'll add it in anyways. Pishcal — ♣ 16:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.statista.com/statistics/264001

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fruit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150620181548/http://www.palaeos.com/Plants/Lists/Glossary/GlossaryL.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Plants/Lists/Glossary/GlossaryL.html#M

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 03:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pine nuts, etc.

I can see that this article has seen a lot of trouble, and it makes me hesitant to believe anything I read here. But I really wanted to ask about the statement that

  "Edible gymnosperm seeds are often given fruit names, e.g., pine nuts, ginkgo nuts."

What exactly about "pine nut" is a "fruit name"? A pine is a tree, as is ginkgo. In the article on pine nuts, it mentions that although they are called "nuts", they are technically seeds, since they lack the protective coating (shell, etc) that a true nut has. This is how I read it anyway. Was the person who wrote that sentence trying to say something similar? Perhaps they meant that "nut" implies a fruit (assuming nuts are a variety of fruit...I have trouble following this article), but in fact they are actually seeds, which are not fruits...but are a component of fruits. I'm totally confused, so there must be some better way to right that sentence (for starters, not everyone knows what a "gymnosperm" is, which is why they are careful to explain it in parenthesis in the "pine nut" article)..45Colt 03:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this reflects the same problem we had at Berry until Berry (botany) was split off. In botanical terminology, a nut_botany is indeed a kind of fruit_botany. However, pines and ginkgos don't have fruit_botany, since only flowering plants do (at least in traditional botanical terminology), and they aren't flowering plants. It's hard to write clearly about the everyday and technical meanings in the same article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add the following to the section of See also......please......

List of inedible fruits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509004401/http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/health_professionals/food_safety.html to http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/health_professionals/food_safety.html

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) 09:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

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

206.176.110.97 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can i put in a orde of mcribs and bigmacks and yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Not done: DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beet not a fruit, biologically

Under the Development section, in the simple fruit sub-section beet is listed as an example of an utricle "utricle – (e.g., beet)". I believe this is an incorrect example, and can't find anything to back it up. The term 'beet' commonly refers to beetroot (even the wikipedia redirects to beetroot). And the beetroot is the tap root of the beet plant. The tap root is definitely not a fruit, biologically. I think the example should be changed to caraway. The wikipedia article on Utricle (redirects to Achene) supports caraway as an example. 01:14, 21 November 2018‎ Andyrewm

Done. Agree, switched to strawberry. The utricle (fruit) article redirects to achene, with strawberry as a common example. --Zefr (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

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

66.203.229.16 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)plz let me edit banana in somewhere[reply]

Bananas are already mentioned in the article. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Botanically, a banana is a berry; I added it to the table. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

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

A request to add egg as a family of fruit. Hugo boi (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Eggs, pertaining to the animal kingdom, are not a family of fruit belonging to the plant kingdom. Largoplazo (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of sugar content in fruit

What I'm missing is a section on the development of the sugar content in fruit during the history of cultivation of fruits. Fspade (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Friut" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Friut. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#Friut until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ghinga7 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede sentence is efficient

Here the lede sentence is efficient. It presents no words or phrases that aren't essential to the purpose of this lede sentence: i.e., describe/provide the essential characters of the noun "fruit". Inserting parenthetical information here that describes other nouns does not meet that purpose. Such tangential info can easily be provided nearby. Indeed, the very same noun-phrase ("flowering plants") is immediately available in the very next sentence; this sentence provides auxiliary information about "fruit" and is the better spot to insert parenthetical info on that other noun.

[Spiegel87-1] Spiegel-Roy, P. (August 28 1996). The Biology of Citrus. Cambridge University Press. pp. pp. 87-88. ISBN 0-521-33321-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[2] Schlegel. Encyclopedic Dictionary. pp. p. 5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[3] ttp://www.statista.com/statistics/264001

[1]

[2]

[1]