Jump to content

Talk:Phaseolus vulgaris/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Beans color and human races

The whole talk about how Brazilians associate the color of the skin of Rio de Janeiro people and São Paulo people with the color of beans consumed is a joke. To start with what is called "feijão Paulistinha" (beans of São Paulo) is the brown one. Because the people of São Paulo used to prefer that variety. The rest of the country used to prefer the black variety (feijão Carioca). Now there is all kinds of it everywhere with predominance of the black, followed by the brown. Nothing to do with human races. I'm not been PC, I couldn't care less about it, it's just ridiculous what is written in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.Maque (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Although you've got some of the names muddled up, I wholly agree with the sentiment; The bean colour=human phenotype argument is nothing more than a flight of fancy of the author. Source: I live in Brazil. It should be removed. --Groovyspaceman (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Just saying IT IS the reason gave here in Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo to why we call the carioca bean the way it is called. We had the 1st or 2nd strongest immigration movements from places such as Galicia, northern Portugal, Switzerland, Poland (including most Jews from there in the country) and France, so it is not absurdical AT ALL to claim that as more prone to rutilism, aka teh ginger, we have more freckles than people elsewhere. Sararás and freckled, reddish-brown-haired black people are even more common here than in the United States, a very Anglo-Celtic place (not a personal opinion with basis in media representation, I know many, many people that lived in the Southern U.S. for decades, not using as source, just saying). And we don't use such names as truly-never-heard-of "feijão paulistinha" for the feijão MULATO! It is a matter of confusion between people speaking different regional varieties of the language, but it is not "incorrect" or "flight of fancy" in our POV. Please don't go all jumping to conclusions. Lguipontes (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I live in the UK and I'm really interested in getting hold of "black turtle bean"s to try in a recipe but i can't find them anywhere, anyone know a retailer that sells them, like tesco's (except I don't think tesco do them).--88.105.104.241 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Lovekesh gilhare (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What is a bean?

Or are they a "pulse" instead of a fruit? timl

I think we are talking about two different classification schemes, like orange versus warm. "Vegetable" is a rather loose term referring to plant products which are prepared as food in rather standard ways and are generally not very sweet. "Fruit" is a botanically precise term referring to a seed-bearing plant structure derived from the pistils and which may or may not involve other parts of the flower, and may not even be edible. Beans are both a vegetable and a fruit (and a pulse). Just my 2 cents. WormRunner | Talk 00:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My understanding was that the botanical definition of the difference in fruit and vegetable is just that. The vegetative part of the plant if consumed is a vegetable and if the fruting body of the plant is consumed it is a fruit. Again this is the (Ithought) botanical classification. In the US, legalities for tax law and things of this nature have changed this from a legal standpoint. --Agrofe 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a haricot?

The article currently implies that haricot is a synonym of common bean, while baked beans implies that the former is a variety of the latter. Does anyone know better than I do?

Thanks, Pekinensis 21:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Haricot is another variety of Phaseolus vulgaris --nixie 21:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Phaseolus vulgaris domesticated independently in Eurasia?

Is there published evidence of this? - WormRunner | Talk 05:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it for the moment. Such a surprising and symbolically important fact deserves references and further explication. — Pekinensis 15:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Phaseolus vulgaris are new world beans. There are old world beans: Faba vulgaris (Faba), Cicer arietinum (Chickpea), Glycine max (Soy), Vigna angularis (Adzuki), Vigna radiata (Mung), Vigna unguiculata (Yardlong) ... [Ref: Cornucopia, Stephen Facciola, ISBN:0962808709]

What we need

WormRunner, thank you for working with me on this. I'm out of time right now, but I want to make a note that besides organizing the information we already have, we need to provide a description of the plant itself, as well as information on culture (days to maturity, soil requirements, area yield, ...). I'm sure there's more. — Pekinensis 02:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and we need to merge from flageolet (bean). — Pekinensis 03:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Merged, with help from an anonymous contributer. — Pekinensis 15:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The description of the common bean's process of germination is described to be typical of dicots. This is not quite right at the point of the epigaeic position of the cotyledons, as there are several dicots with a hypogaeic position of the dicots, e.g. the oak tree and the Runner Bean, peas etc.

Does anyone have deeper insight into the taxonomy and systematics of the "shrubby" varieties? Can they be legitimately called Phaséolus nánus L. (= Ph. vulgaris var. nanus Aschers., = Ph. compressus D.C., = Ph. romanus Savi)?91.34.153.7 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous contributions

Thank you, anonymous contributer. I have retained or slightly reworded most of your changes, but removed the list of varieties grown for shell beans because I am familiar with most of those varieties as dry beans, a view that was confirmed by some quick google searching. — Pekinensis 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Most of the shell bean varieties are also dry bean and it is more a different use than a varietal thing. WormRunner | Talk 20:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dry Bean types: Black (negro); Brown; Green; Mottled (pinto,anasazi); Pink (Santa Maria Pinquito, only grown commercially in Santa Maria, California, required ingredient in Santa Maria barbecue, also where tri-tip barbecue was invented); Red (kidney); White (Great Northern, Navy, Cannellini); Yellow (Sinaloa Azufrado); Popping (nunas)

Shell Bean types: Common, Flageolets, Half Runners, Cranberry

Snap (string) Bean types: Common, Haricot verts, Purple, Wax

Other Phaseolus: P. acutifolus (tepary), P. coccineus (runner), P. lunatus (lima)...

Citation Search: Black Bean Antioxidants

I don't know how to make citations, so I didn't want to resolve the "citation needed" for black bean antioxidant effects, but I did come across something of a pointer. If it's useful, then great: From http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=2 you can see a reference to a Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry article (or two) that support the claim that black beans are high in antioxidents.63.249.64.32 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You could replace the "citation needed" by <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14611168&dopt=Abstract M.G. Choung et al., Anthocyanin profile of Korean cultivated kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)., J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Nov 19;51(24):7040-3.</ref>. But I'm not convinced that this article applies to black turtle beans and that the numbers they find are exceptional compared to other legumes. Han-Kwang 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Please pardon my mildly boorish newness. Thank you for generously helping me understand when I couldn't muster the effort to decipher the citation guidelines. I can now contribute better.
I'm not convinced either, that the J Agric Food Chem article(s) apply to black beans in particular (or even legumes in general) though the whfoods.com article suggests so by its use. If only the article text(s) were easily available. I won't investigate further.
I wasn't under the impression that the text "Black turtle beans have recently been reported to be an extremely good source of nutritional antioxidants" meant so in opposition to other legumes rather than to foods in general. Perhaps in the context of an article on legumes it may be taken so. How does one recommend this be clarified (without actually doing the work)?  ;) Maybe it's best to let it be? Will it in time be removed for lacking citation?
Thanks again. 63.249.64.32 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. :) My example is one of the ways. You could even simply put [http://example.com/bla/] as a citation. If you use the <ref>...</ref> construction, you should make sure that there is a tag <references/> somewhere at the bottom of the page: that's where all the references will be listed.
In general, vague unreferenced and subjective ("extremely good") claims such as the one about black turtle beans don't really belong on Wikipedia, but after re-reading the website you originally mentioned, I think you could cite both the site and the abstract of the paper and try to summarize the main point that beans with certain skin colors are comparable to antioxidant-rich foods such as grapes and cranberries. It would also be good to make the claim a bit more NPOV. Han-Kwang 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

bruce

Taxonomic History

I am puzzled. I have been hearing for years that the common bean was an American import, like maize, potato, tomato and some others. Yet the taxon for it is phaseolus vulgaris. Phaseolus is a very old word, since new Latin borrowed it from the Greek. It means that there has been a plant, likely a fabacea, that has born this name since before there were emperors in Rome, yet, now, it is given to a genus that is said to originate in the New World. Can anyone tell me, or direct me to the correct article, to what plant(s) the word phaseolus/φασουλοσ may have been applied before 1500? I suspect the fava bean (vicia faba), but it may not be the only one. Thanks for helping, once known it may be worth a sentence or two on the main page (or at the general bean or phaseolus article). --Svartalf 19:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Under mung bean, it mentions that several species have been moved from Phaseolus to Vigna. So presumably the genus originally included old world plants, but has now been restricted to only new world species. Don't forget that the system of scientific names was only started by Linnaeus, after the Americas had been discovered. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Soybean

Considering the importance of the soybean, it needs to have a paragraph here too. (I know there is a page about them.)67.172.182.35 08:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out bean for the many, many other plants called beans. -- WormRunner 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Kidney Beans used by Romans! How could it come from America?

Kidney beans were planted and eaten by the Romans. I don't think they come from America as the article seems to indicate. Columella gives instructions on how to plant kidney beans in the first book of his work on Agriculture.24.6.23.138 01:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there is the same problem here as with the squashes/pumpkins. Kidney beans got their modern Latin name from scholars who identified them with the "phaseolus" of the ancients. Linnaeus followed these scholars in assigning the name, but whether they are actually the same species is open to dispute. It would not be the first time Linnaeus was wrong in assigning a name: he thoroughly botched the assignment of "Agaricus" to the common field mushroom (the true "agaricus" of history was a tree mushroom). Latin scholars (the ones translating Columella), and botanists may not be in agreement on this point - if it's like the pumpkins, then not all botanists agree, either.
The XVI and XVII century herbalists specifically designated a few varieties of Phaseolus as novelties of "Indian" origin, while treating of others as being so common as to be familiar to all (though whether they were the same "phaseolus" as those described by ancient historians was debated even then). Therefore, I tend to believe that they were known in Europe before the discovery of America (as I do with the pumpkins). In such a case, they were probably either Asian in origin (the ancient Greek writers, IIRC, described them as having come from the East) or else native to both Asia and the Americas.GSwift 03:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Drying beans

Does anyone know how fresh beans are dried? What is the method? How energy intensive is it? This is something that I have often wondered and if someone has the answers, I think the info is worthy of inclusion.--68.31.249.149 08:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

great quick resource (do NOT ignore the freezer step), but not encyclopedia worthy as a citation. You could get some great google search strings to find what you need, tho, from professional and academic sources.

http://www. ehow .com/how_8279_harvest-store-dry.html Kiwi 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

White kidney beans

White kidney beans should be mentioned in the article (but aren't). Badagnani 03:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold, have fun, add what you feel is needed. -- Nashville Monkey 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I just mentioned them as toxic. Ugh! They're also known as cannellini beans (which redirects here but as a distinct major food ingredient should be its own article). Wikidemo 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Online Resources on Beans

http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/ciatinfocus/beans.htm

http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/Forage/Species/Legumes/DryorCommonBean.htm

Kiwi 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly designated "Common beans"

Faba Bean, Lentils, Chickpeas, Cowpeas - from what I have tracked down, these are not of the same genus and species. For all I know, there may be more. Like soybeans? Kiwi 20:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Those are all different species. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


How did Turtle Beans get that name?

Can somebody please explain why black "turtle beans" are called "turtle beans?" Do they taste like turtles or something?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.51.16 (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They do taste meatier than other beans, but maybe they're called turtle beans because they look or feel like a turtle shell. Foobaz·o< 03:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ought to unmerge

Different types of beans should be broken out into their own separate articles. They're distinct in appearance, flavor, and culinary use. Different beans are native to different places, and are used differently in various cuisines. So, if you are working on a section and it looks like you have enough material to stand alone as an article, best to break it out. Don't forget to add citations, please! Pictures would be nice.Wikidemo 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, they are different species, whereas the taxobox at the beginning says the article is just about one species. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No the beans on this page are all types of common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris, not different species. Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Black beans aren't brown, afaik.

The image for black beans presents... brown beans?!? The black beans I know are consistently and thoroughly black.
But maybe there are brown varieties too? I've never seen them though.
Not on the "Brazilian feijoada", at least — which is not an uncommon dish here in Portugal. (Black beans aren't generally used in Portugal except for Brazilian dishes, and sometimes in chili.)
So, I ask/suggest if the image can be replaced with something more... characteristic. --portugal (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Those beans have been cooked, which might have leached some of the color out of them. But you're right, black beans aren't brown like that here in the USA either. Foobaz·o< 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Black beans become brown if acidic liquid is present. 24.136.152.144 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional values

I guess the nutritional values are off ? If I look at any can of beans, they have only 70-80kcal/100gr (90 for lentils). Here it states 300 for raw ones and still 130 for canned. please look into and fix, beans are low-cal and here it reads like this is untrue. See http://www.calorie-counter.net/beans-calories.htm 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dried beans don't have water, so they have more calories per gram. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article should say what varieties are more nutritious, and how much nutrition too in fact. Jidanni (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No reference to Cannellini beans in article

There is a redirect from Cannellini to common bean, but no reference to Cannellini beans (i.e., white kidney beans) under kidney beans. // Internet Esquire (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Beans vs. Kidney Beans

Kidney Beans are a variety of Phaseolus vulgaris

Many beans (of this and a few other species) might be called "Red Beans".

The southern dish "Red Beans and Rice" is made with a variety of Phaseolus Vulgaris known as Smalle Red Beans. These are not a kidney bean, are not the same variety as a kidney bean, they are their own variety.

This page, along with the Red Bean page, makes several misstatements on this topic.

Spope3 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bunching

Heya people, i've just been looking over this page and wondering what can be done to improve the layout. What would people say to adding Template:Clear after the heading to force each image and its respective text into more obvious sections? It would create a lot of white space but the page would be much more readable. Abergabe (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PHLS is Britain's Public Health Laboratory Service, but the cite is on an FDA page

The Toxicity section cites the FDA but links to the non-existent page PHLS. I believe the non-existent page should be the Public Health Laboratory Service, but this British agency has apparently been absorbed by Britain's Health_Protection_Agency, although I can find no verification of that. Anyway, it'd be cool if someone could iron out a better citation for kidney-bean toxicity. Zirconscot (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The cited FDA info is actually very good. I removed the dangling references to the British information and transferred over some additional relevant information from the FDA page, such as the fact that low-temperature cooking may actually increase toxicity. The one statement that doesn't appear to be supported by the existing cites is the caution against eating uncooked sprouts of high-haemagglutinin beans. Since it was unsourced, I removed it. But if anyone has a good reference for this, we should restore it. NillaGoon (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split and move...

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Editors are free to split as appropriate and to cleanup up the incoming links. I think in doing the cleanup, consideration should be given to having a dab page at common bean. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Common bean → Phaseolus vulgaris — and bean types spit to separate articles.

I see a few problems with the setup with this article as it is now.

1. I don't think that "common bean" is an English common name at all (it strikes me as just a translation of the Latin name for the species). At least not in my experience. I've never heard anyone talk about "common beans" in reference to this species - at least not in everyday conversation. It may be that some people somewhere do, but it would surprise me...

2. I don't think that most people (outside of botanists) think about all of these beans being different varieties of one type. In the culinary world, I don't think most chefs consider (for example) lima beans to be more different from pinto beans than navy beans are. I have a hard time imagining someone ever saying something like "I don't want to make lima beans for dinner tonight...I want to make some type of common bean instead."

3. There's precedent on Wikipedia for vegetable types which people consider to be separate to have their own articles even if botanically they're different varieties (or cultivars, or whatever) of the same species. For example kale and collard greens each have their own separate articles, even though they're very similar, and of course there's also a separate article for broccoli, which is more different but also in the same species. Of course there's still an article for brassica oleracea too.

4. Many of the bean types listed in the article already have fairly lengthy sections of their own, and if they're split off then that would allow more room for them to grow.

So, my proposal is that the present page be moved to phaseolus vulgaris and each type in this species be split into its own article. This page would then focus on this species as a whole and botanically, while each article for the individual bean types could go into more detail about its history, culinary uses in different cultures, etc. I think brassica oleracea would be a good model.

Wikipedia aims to have a global world view, and I think it would do a lot for that to be able to have this sort of depth about different types of beans in cultures around the world. And in many cultures, individual bean types are very central to people's diets, and they're certainly considered at least as separate and individually notable as kale and collard greens! -Helvetica (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support move and split. The Google hits in Google Books and Google Scholar confirm your observations. "Phaseolus vulgaris" yields an order of magnitude more hits than "common bean." I also agree with you that the articles should be split. Articles on pinto beans and kidney beans are notable enough to warrant articles on their own and not redirect to sections of this article. Rkitko (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move and split. 1) "Common bean" is just not a term in wide use for this one species. 2) It reflects a limited view of what is common, lacking a worldwide perspective. 3) Using a term so common as "common" in a formal name could add to confusion with other unrelated species. Tom Hulse (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Temperature guidelines and toxicity

The reference to illness associated with use of slow cookers may be misleading. According to general online search of various cooking sites, modern slow cookers are capable of producing 100+ degree Celsius temperatures on 'High' settings. Although the Crock-Pot website itself encourages users to boil beans prior to use in a slow cooker (http://www.crock-pot.com/CustomerService.aspx?id=faq&fgid=42), the article seems inflammatory as written. Unfortunately, the Crock-Pot site does not have temperature equivalent documentation. Any help on this would be appreciated. Elitry (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also related to toxicity, if the phrase "even a few beans can be toxic, and beans can be as much as five times more toxic if cooked at 175°F (80°C) than if eaten raw, so adequate preboiling is vital" is correct, I think it needs some more clarification. It seems that it should be "becans can be as much as five times less toxic". However, could always be that it's some crazy nonlinear pattern; beans are not toxic raw, become toxic if cooked at such temperatures, but this toxicity again disappears at higher temperatures or longer cooking, or pre-boiling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.101.151 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Gallo Pinto is never made with black beans

Whoever wrote about "gallo pinto" is clearly unfamiliar with the topic. It is never made with black beans. In fact black beans are not eaten in Nicaragua, El Salvador or Honduras, and only somewhat in Costa Rica. In Central America they are eaten in Guatemala. The are also consumed in Southern Mexico but unknown in the northern and central part of the country. So they are not found in all Latin American communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.212.53 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you have not encountered this, but I have never eaten the glorious dish that is gallo pinto without black beans. 98.82.3.6 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Snap - round, flat, Romano, what?

The article previously stated "... snap beans, which have a thin flat pod that requires less cooking time". Where I've lived in the US (midwest, south, and Pacific Northwest) snap beans most often refer to round beans, for example Blue Lake beans. I wouldn't dispute that the term might also be usable for flat beans (which I would tend to call Romano) but I definitely wouldn't say that snap beans are always, or even usually, flat. I changed the line to "...snap beans, which may be round or have a thin flat pod that requires less cooking time", but I'm inclined to take out the mention of shape altogether. Opinion?

RamblingChicken (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Potassium

If this is so good in potassium, why isn't it listed in the nutrition boxes? Imagine Reason (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Kidney beans and iron

Is it just me or is the iron percentage of the RDA for kidney beans off by an order of magnitude? I.e, should it not be ~6% ? 95.109.104.45 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Green bean into this article

Currently Green bean is a separate article while all other ways of referring to these beans are either listed here or are redirects (Common beans for example). Green bean covers the same ground although in less detail and with some added gastronomy - although there is plenty of gastronomy here too. At present this seems to be an unintended fork that can easily be remedied. Other beans such as Runner bean and Broad bean are all re-directs to the correct scientific name article. This proposal is consistent with the discussion above a year ago "Proposed split and move...".  Velella  Velella Talk   22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It reads to me as though it's counter to the previous discussion, which concluded with "Editors are free to split as appropriate", as then proposed, which I'd agree with as cultural aspects seem a significant part of various varieties' topics and worthy of individual treatment. ENeville (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion of the discussion was that there should be one main article at Phaseolus vulgaris but that editors could split off specific types or varieties of bean into separate articles as required. Green bean is neither a type or variety - or at least in the article it isn't. It is used here as a portmanteau term for an undefined number or varieties. Hence the confusion.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
There is sometimes a case for discussing the botanical aspects of a species at the scientific name and the uses at the common name, but in this case the two articles cover much the same ground, so the split is pointless. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wax beans, shell beans, snap peas, snap beans

"Wax bean" directs to the article, but there is no mention of wax beans in this article or the Green Bean article.

Note on shell beans. It is true, as the article says, that shell beans are beans whose pods are not eaten. More accurately, shell beans are purchased fresh in the pod, and the pod removed by the consumer prior to cooking and consumption. The process of pod removal is called "shelling", hence the name.

Note on snap peas, snap beans: As the "Snap pea" article mentions, snap peas (sugarsnap peas) and snap beans (green beans) have edible pods. These beans are commonly purchased in the pod with a bit of attached inedible stem. The process of breaking off the stem is called "snapping", from which the name derives. Mohanchous (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Native to area between Mexico and Argentina

See https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:btf-INLMmdkJ:www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/gepts/Debouck%2520et%2520al.%2520Wild%2520beans%2520ECD%2520PER.%25201993.pdf+&hl=en&gl=be&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi-1uIrbWnFQubgXw3hdwWZ8pbycTQgaJzCjgcvHNaq0n1SCI5utZB_PR6wqUfeCc_RZglySfSb2-ZGgwmUiI5BnRXbSLRk3tFEYPhx5uOKcuBl4QS4OWO-vFGNcvfTIGO5oCE1&sig=AHIEtbRJXzUXbesQbNylMZ38zFunBl2pPg&pli=1

It's been highly domesticated since then 91.182.153.108 (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Enzyme inhibitors, text removed

I've removed recent additions to the page as follows: "Soaking is essential to deal with enzyme inhibitors which compete with digestion (Howell,1985)." This is not good text for several reasons. The citation is inadequate, though perhaps it is the same article referred to here with such statements as "without evidence". Also, inhibitors don't compete, they inhibit.

"The soaking water needs to be thrown away." is already covered on the page. "Kombu reduces flatulence" was also added; this is unsourced, and no such statement appears at Kombu. This page already says that it is said to aid digestion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Split

I've split the section about each variety into their own article; all of them used to be redirects. None of them is much above stub level, but then, taken together they took too much focus from this article. I think that this one, while far from perfect, at least looks more manageable, with less crammed pictures and nutrition infoboxes. No such user (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Three sisters

The lead now states that "Beans, squash and maize constitute the "Three Sisters" that provide the foundation of Native American agriculture." However, this is an article about an ancient worldwide crop, and singling out one cultural reference in the second sentence gives it too much undue weight, and American cultural bias. As a compromise, I moved the sentence to the end of the lead, but it still stands out disjointed. Also, per WP:LEAD, "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This one is not covered at all.

What we need is probably a section on overview of cultural and culinary uses across the world, as in e.g. Potato#Uses, where this material could find its home. But I still don't think that it belongs to the lead. No such user (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't a case case of modern American cultural bias, but a statement from the culture that domesticated the crop in the first place, and for whom it is of supreme importance both for survival and spiritually. I agree that the page needs a section further down that provides more detail. Culinary uses in other parts of the world should, I think, be kept very clear of the Three Sisters information. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know it was domesticated by native Americans, but it seems to be true, or, at least, hypothesized to be true [1], so that strengthens your point. There's a nice overview at About.com (blacklisted?) [2]. Oh well, we would probably need a "history" section as well; too bad that we don't have it. No such user (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite a nice list of articles can be found with scholar.google.com using the search keywords phaseolus and "three sisters". [this article] also has a good summary and the first page should be visible. There's no doubt that these beans were not known to Europeans until they ventured to the New World, because there's a lot of recorded history about them. The same is true of maize. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phaseolus vulgaris. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Phaseolus vulgaris/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The bean variety Great Northern is not the same as Navy. Great Northern has different agronomic characteristics, is slighty larger than the Navy, becomes more `mushy' when cooked and has different flavor. MNMineiro (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 02:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phaseolus_vulgaris/Archive_1&oldid=1074301076"