Talk:Pumpkin

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Remove Protection

There seems to be no longer a need for protection and I request it be removed 2602:306:CE96:AD70:4D0C:AC3A:F994:3687 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)BeaMyra

I have removed the semi-protection. I'll keep an eye on the article and restore semiprotection if the level of vandalism warrants it. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Better giant pumpkin pictures?

The ones illustrating the article aren't especially useful since there is nothing in them that makes it clear what scale they are. Are they the size of a cottage or the size of a watermelon?207.38.230.144 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Major issues with articles linked from other languages

The concept of "pumpkin" as a conglomeration of various varieties of squash from different species does not exist in most languages and cultures. As a result, many of the pages linked to this article from Wikipedias in other languages seem to be done so incorrectly. There are some cases where it may be appropriate to keep the articles linked. Below is a list of pages in other languages which I believe are incorrectly linked to this one, as well as an example of an article that matches well enough to remain linked:

• The Spanish article linked here is Calabaza gigante. This specifically refers to giant pumpkins, and thus excludes the vast majority of the content of the English article (varieties of C. pepo used for cooking, jack-o-lanterns, etc.), and really should be linked to Giant pumpkin, which covers that topic.

• The Italian article that links here is Zucca, a term which is nearly synonymous with the English word "squash". Honestly, the "Zucca" article is somewhat superfluous, since the facts and lists in the article almost all pertain to species in the genus Cucurbita, for which an article already exists on that Wikipedia. Pretty much the only exception to this is brief mention at the start of the article that the word "zucca" is often used to describe the Calabash as well. Either way, the article should not be linked to Pumpkin, since the contents of the two articles have very little overlap. The confusion is probably partly due to the fact that the image of a pumpkin is closely associated with the categorical concept of squash in Italy - you might find an assortment of butternut squash and spaghetti squash in a supermarket there with a picture of a pumpkin on the sign to represent them.

• The Emiliano-Romagnolo article for Süca is based off the Italian article and is incompatible with the English page Pumpkin for the same reasons. However, there are no articles that cover the same topic in that Wikipedia, and so it should be linked to the English Cucurbita.

• The Venetian article, Suca, makes the same error - it is an article about squash in general, not pumpkins. It even has a statement that basically says the following: "The name is pumpkin in English, Kürbis in German, búča in Slovenian, and zucca in Italian. "Kürbis", "búča", and "zucca" all mean "squash" in their respective languages. In fact, the German article "Kürbisse" (which redirects from "Kürbis") and the Slovenian article "Búča" both link to the English Cucurbita, just as this Venetian article should.

• The Portuguese term Abóbora is also essentially synonymous with the English term "squash". Annoyingly, however, the article for that topic on Portuguese Wikipedia consists mainly of a problematic translation of the English article Pumpkin. It contains sentences such as "the term Abóbora... is used interchangeably with 'Abóbora' and 'Abóbora'" (a pointless translation of the English sentence "The term pumpkin... is used interchangeably with "squash" and "winter squash"). Thus, although the content of the Portuguese article actually overlaps quite a bit with Pumpkin, it shouldn't as it really equates to squash, a topic with a much wider scope similar to that covered in the English article Cucurbita.

• The French article Citrouille is an example of an article that would actually be appropriate to keep linked. It refers specifically to round, orange cultivars of C. pepo - the stereotypical pumpkin generally used for Jack-o'-lanterns and pies, and thus overlaps with the content of the English article.

I would recommend that all those familiar with other languages review the corresponding pages for those languages and remove the link for those that have little overlap in topic or content with this article.

Tjag51 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Absurdity of accepting Eurocentric OED etymology over far more likely Native American etymology

As was previously discussed in 2017 (see above), the Wampanoag / Massachusett word pôhpukun is "claimed" by the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe as the root of the English word pumpkin. Given the nasalization of the vowel ô in the Wampanoag / Wôpanâak language, the Wampanoag pronunciation of the word is "ponh-pu-kun," which, when said aloud, sounds almost exactly like the English "pumpkin." While the term translates to "grows forth round," this is also the Wampanoag term used for the fruit itself. Not coincidentally, pumpkins were introduced to English-speaking colonists in Massachusetts by the Wampanoag. It seems likely that the OED in the 1980s looked for a Eurocentric (and, on its face, far-fetched) etymology, rather than investigating indigenous American words. Given that the indigenous term is nearly identical to the English term, I think it deserves mention as, at the very least, a possible etymology. If the Eurocentrists who police Wikipedia are dissatisfied with that, I would be happy to reach out to Jessie Little Doe Baird, an MIT-trained linguist, MacArthur Fellow, and Vice-Chairwoman of the Mashpee Wampanoag Nation, to provide more explanation.

See https://www.wlrp.org/fun-with-words and http://www.bostonherald.com/2018/05/27/wampanoag-words-used-in-english/

@MattWeinstein: it's not directly an example of Eurocentricism, but the application of core policies and guidelines, such as WP:PSTS and WP:RS. However, I do agree that these policies can indirectly be biased in favour of "western" views simply because of who wrote the most easily accessed reliable sources. The answer is to search diligently and make use of use other sources, as you have done. But all reliable sources must be used in a way that respects WP:NPOV. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There are also some serious chronological issues with the Wampanoag-origin hypothesis; New World cucurbits, unsurprisingly, came back to Europe pretty early post-Colombian contact. Varieties that we would call a "pumpkin", based on appearance, show up in European art pre-1600, and the word "pompion" was applied pretty indiscriminately to many cucurbits (including what we would now call "gourds" or "squash"). Pumpkins wouldn't have been a novelty to members of the Plymouth Colony in the same way, say, a moose would be. It's possible that "pôhpukun" influenced the shift from "pompion" to "pumpkin" and the narrowing of its circumscription to the way we understand it in the present day (with the Naragansett-derived "squash" scooping up many former "pompions") but the bare assertion of the WLRP isn't really enough to justify it. Choess (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I recently reworded the part of the article dealing with this topic, to make it clear no evidence has been found that the Wampanoag word ever came into English. Certainly, if and when real evidence is found, the Etymology section will be rewritten - but there needs to be solid evidence first. There's no shame for proponents of the idea in admitting evidence hasn't come up yet, since the idea is obviously presented in good faith and it's plausible enough to be worth investigating. In a case like this I think there's no harm in keeping the unsubstantiated material in the article - as long as a statement of "no evidence yet" stays attached to it.

Proof that the English really did change their word for this item in a relatively sudden way, that the change did begin during the claimed period of time, and that the very first English to make the change were the ones living with or near Wampanoag people (and that it spread from there), seem to be the three basic things needed. An English person in that time and place writing something like "I learned a new word today from one of the native people, for that hard green-and-orange hollow fruit with so many seeds inside - they call it pumpkin" would instantly settle this discussion. Evidence that's more subtle counts too - but only if there's a lot of it and it "covers all the bases". TooManyFingers (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding article to the category "Foods"

Today I saw that this article is not added to the category "Foods". I thought this would be a problem, so I fixed this, because pumpkins are foods. EditJuice (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Pumpkin pies, pumpkin bread, pumpkin rolls, pumpkin soup and pumpkin butter are all potential use of culinary pumpkins. However, not all varieties of pumpkins are equally tasty, and therefore usable as food, the "jack-o-lantern" type probably being the worst. Dhrm77 (talk)

Chucking vs chunkin

@Oknazevad: I looked over the recent edit history and it looks like this is gonna be a most ridiculous back-and-forth edit spat as I expect people will keep changing it to "chucking" a few times per month. The page Pumpkin chucking links to "chucking," so other than just the funnies I don't see why keeping it as "Pumpkin chunkin(g)" is worth the confusion. If you're deadset on keeping it (as it is hilarious), it could be a subject of a ridiculous edit notice . Unburnable (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't my fight, but to whomever wants to keep "chunkin", you could add a <!-- This is not a typo --> note in the code of the page. It should limit some back end forth edits. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Not "dead set", just the term as I've known and seen it used in third-party. The other article was moved without discussion some years back, apparently trying to differentiate between the generic activity and the largest such event, held annually in Delaware, a distinction without basis and a POV motive. A proper discussion would probably result in that move being reverted. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Varieties chart

In principal, it's a good idea. In practice, it's a mess. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so just copying from within Wikipedia without references does not make the section sourced at all. Adding entire cell entries with nothing except a citation needed tag, not even a claim needing a cite, is just bad editing, too. Either source the material and complete the chart, or it stays out as unsourced and challenged material. The WP:ONUS is on the person adding the material. oknazevad (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not doing what you describe, and I don't appreciate my work being called "bad editing." You are not taking the time to learn what I am doing, nor are you all that familiar with the content of this topic. Your approach, reverting first instead of contacting me, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. MarkWKidd (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, please do not address me with imperatives like "Talk page. Now." That is completely inappropriate, and I hope it is the result of a language or cultural barrier. MarkWKidd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You are continuously adding uncited material while also adding citation needed tags to the same material. You don't see how that is a problem? You completely fail to address my concerns and barreling through regardless. More importantly, continuously edit warring to restore unsourced material when challenged is very much problematic, uncollaborative behavior, so don't lecture me about the spirit of Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not doing what you describe, and based on your messages you have no willingness to discuss this issue. I have an ongoing commitment to the articles I have edited, and I am working to correct the citations in this article and add new ones. Conversations should not be initiated by reverting, and certainly individual critiques shouldn't be made without reviewing my editing history. I do not believe you are acting in good faith or in the interest of improving this article. MarkWKidd (talk)

I have had this article watchlisted and have been editing it for seven years. So perhaps you should check the edit history yourself.

And yes, that is what you're doing. It's the same sort of behavior as putting in a section header and an expand section tag without putting in any actual content. It's demanding others do the work for you, even if that's not your intent. If you don't have sufficient info for the origin column (which is where the problem lays) leave the column out until you can source it. Use your sandbox to do the work, not the live article. The fact that you don't see the issue is the problem I have with the edits. I don't think they remotely improve the article at all. oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am in no way demanding that you or any others do work for me, including in an implicit way by using citation needed tags. I have familiarized myself with your edit history. I assert that you are misapplying Wikipedia guidelines, and are doing so with an adversarial attitude that contributes nothing to this article. I ask that you please leave me alone, and I suggest that you take a break from watching this article if you are not interested in improving it, which is my only purpose. In the meantime I will continue reading the citations that are included to check for their applicability, adding new citations, and adding content that is relevant to this article. MarkWKidd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Tautological description

“Often called butternut squash, has a pumpkin-like flavor when eaten.”

perhaps it tastes like a pumpkin because it is a pumpkin which is why it’s in this cultivar list. Can someone make that sentence less dumb please?2601:1C2:5000:8CC7:282F:5A28:2697:A136 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Next time, WP:JUSTDOIT. Zefr (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Outdated Largest Pumpkin

Already edited the page to include this info but it got reverted because I used Guinness World Records as a source. Is this appropriate: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/09/pumpkin-world-record-travis-gienger-half-moon-bay ThatOneDoge (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)