Jump to content

Talk:Tomato/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Smith?

Three times in early history and once under in Britain a Smith or Andrew F Smith is mentioned. Since he is also cited in each case why not just make the statements?--Weetoddid (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Production trends: contradictory data and broken ref

This is my first time commenting or editing here, I apologize if something is incorrect. Under Production Trends, the text says that Mexico is the largest producer, but the graphical chart shows China instead of Mexico. After going to the reference site, I believe the correct data for 2005 would be China as the largest producer. Mexico shows a substantially lower production at 2.24 million tons. I have made the change in the text on the page from Mexico to China. TonyHagale (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The table shown under the above section of the article appears thus:
Top Tomato Producers — 2008
(million tons)
 China 311.6
 United States 111.0
 Turkey 39.7
 Egypt 47.6
 India 87.6
World Total 125
Source:
UN Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO)[1]
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can the largest producer, China, produce 311.6 million tons annually, and the total world production be less than half that, at 125 million tons? Unfortunately, the link in the reference in non-functional, so I am unable to verify. Clarification would be appreciated, and fix to the broken link would be great. --Yumegusa (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


This isn't the biggest problem - the cided source, FAOSTAT, doesn't even have the data for 2008. I dug the following table for 2007 up from FAOSTAT and will replace the one in the article, as it is uncited. Let's leave the old table here in case someone wants a quick review. So, this is the 2007 data from FAOSTAT:

Top Tomato Producers — 2007
(in tonnes)
 China 33 645 000
 United States 11 500 000
 Turkey 9 919 673
 India 8 585 800
 Egypt 7 550 000
World Total 126 246 708
Source:
UN Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO)[2]

Gasper.azman (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=Production.Crops.Primary&Domain=Production&servlet=1&hasbulk=0&version=ext&language=EN
  2. ^ http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567

peeling and seeding the tomato

yes i am making salsa for the first time and am having trouble finding information on why or why not to seed and/or peel a tomato. any input would be great.Jondatsun (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual. However you seem to be new, so as a chef: seeds are not chewable, and are bitter. The skin is also difficult to chew and gets stuck in your teeth. For future questions, please see websites like Google or WikiHow, and/or our Reference Desk. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Paella a tomato dish?

Since when has paella been known as a tomato dish? Vegetable paella may have it, but it's certainly not a traditional ingredient. Therefore the whole Iranian etymology section seems highly dubious to me, I'd suggest removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.176.121 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomato is the 'Apple of Paradise'

In a number of European languages (Italian, Hungarian, Serbian, and I think the Austrian dialect) the word for 'tomato' is synonymous with 'paradise'. It would be interesting if the article could explain this unusual etymology.Nmcmurdo (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tournefort vs. Miller

I thought Philip Miller provided the scientific name? He however used the Tournefort classifications at first, but later used the binomial nomenclature of Carolus Linnaeus. 95.209.84.250 (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose that most of the section "Types" be merged into List of tomato cultivars. --Bensin (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring

It strikes me that this article has been growing somewhat 'organically' for some time—people sticking little additions in here and there. The result is somewhat incoherent. As such, I'd like to go through and 'refactor' it, just tidying things up and generally making it flow better. I can't say precisely what I intend to do yet (although as Bensin suggests above, the redundant 'Types' section will probably go), but if you object, speak now (or forever hold your peace). If no-one objects in about a week, I'll go for it. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, No-one's objected, so I'm going to go for it. I'll add the inuse template. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Error

When it is talking about "now Mexico city" it has an error. There is one missing comma that makes it sound odd. How do I correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.204.88 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected it for you. Most Wikipedia articles you could just click "Edit" at the top and change them. This one has been protected (it was an obvious target for people messing around), so you can only edit if you've had an account for a little while. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Different person, those appear to be limes in the picture of the Indian Dish while the caption says lemons. Just a small thing I noticed. 67.243.20.72 (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but looking at it closely, at least the one in the centre looks like it has a yellow rind. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural use of the tomato!

A British lecturer at Unisa, Sally Hutchings, was deported after throwing a tomato at State President P W Botha to protest against curbs on the universities.

http://sites.google.com/site/tomatosaclub/home/itomatopw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.55.22 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

While this might be true, I don't think it's important enough to include in an article about tomatoes. See also WP:trivia. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. It does seem that in the popular imagination (at least in North America), the most desirable item to throw at a prisoner in the stocks - or by extension a corrupt politician or other unpopular public figure - was the rotten tomato. Is this some kind of Puritan inversion of the "golden apple"/"apple of Paradise" image? Heavenlyblue (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The link to Selecting, Storing, and Serving Ohio tomatoes is broken it should be http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/pdf/5532.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.206.178 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting a new first section, or 'lede' section

In my opinion, many readers who seek the tomato article will desire information about nutrition. Currently, nutrition information is in a sub-sub-section about mid-way through the article. First, we read about taxonyms, history and cultivation. I propose moving the nutrition info box to just below the plant/species info box. The first paragaphs would continue to inform about tomato in the sense "plant" while immediately after, moved and new paragraphs would inform on tomato in the sense "food." While I assume more people search for tomato-food than tomato-plant, I think the style of wikipedia is better followed by listing the taxonomy/ontogeny information right up front, then the information on utility immediately after. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the first two sections do mostly cover it as a food (history, then cultivation and use), although perhaps the botanical language in the introduction could be trimmed a bit. As to nutrition specifically, I think it's better to keep the nutrition box with the nutrition section in the text. It could be reorganised to put that higher up, but starting with the history makes sense, at least to me. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.220.72.27, 1 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I believe the scientific name of the tomato is wrong. It should be Lycopersciom esculantum. please verify it. Thanks 188.220.72.27 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Your name gives 0 Google results, while the current one gives 1.1 million results CTJF83 chat 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess the IP user meant Lycopersicon esculentum, which was a widely used name. However, Solanum lycopersicon is now the accepted name. Please see the botanical classification section. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Shortages

Tomato shortages have occurred at different times for ~100 years and should probably be mentioned in this article. (It looks to me as if there is enough for a standalong tomato shortage article). Smartse (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Tomato. Fruit Or Vegetable ?

Hello there is many concepts and arguments that the tomato is a fruit or if it is a vegetable. Some say That the tomato is a fruit because it has seeds. Other's say that the tomato is a vegteable because it isn't sweet and the majority of fruits are sweet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.174.250 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Fruit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.202.162 (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See Tomato#Fruit or vegetable?. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't want people eating tomato leaves

"as well as the plant (Solanum lycopersicum) which bears it." might be better phrased along the lines of "which can also refer to the plant" etc. Saying "X ... is an edible fruit as well as the plant" might lead some to think the plant is edible--assuming they don't read all the way through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.152.238 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. The phrasing doesn't really suggest that the rest of the plant is edible, and it's very well known what part of a tomato plant you usually eat. If someone wants to try eating random plants, it's up to them to check, and it's easy to find warnings about toxicity both here and on the internet in general. (Out of interest, apparently a small amount of tomato leaves is not particularly dangerous. See [1]) Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

Not sure what to do, trying to fix a error on the page. Under cultivationit says China is the world leader in the production of tomato's and produces 25% of the worlds crop... The US tonage is 1/3 of China's but somehow Califorina grows 35% of the worlds crop? The math doesn't add up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglobe (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

'Tomatic acid'?

Why are tomatoes more acidic than many other foods, such as cucumbers, cabbage and probably beets and meat, or even milk? I know they contain vitamin C, but so do alkaline cucumbers. I know apples and citrus fruit are more acidic, but they contain malic and citric acids respectively. I even know of what makes grapes acidic. Why is tomato pH not much more than 3? Is it lycopene? Do they contain pyruvic acid? Has anyone studied the chemistry in question? 24.184.234.24 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)LeucineZipper

It is mainly acetic, ascorbic and malic acids in tomatoes. Contents vary between ripeness and variety. Lycopene is neutral. Tomatoes also contain high amounts of glutamic acid (MSG), which also contributes to the low pH. But again, concentrations depend very much between varieties and ripeness. See for example http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/.Knorrepoes (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Glutamic acid can reach up to 50.000 ppm, or 5 % of the tomato.Knorrepoes (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I know why tomatoes taste more like vinegar than most fruit; it is acetic acid. 24.184.234.24 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Tomatoes are sweet

The first line of the article is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.38.201 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

They're savoury compared to other fruit like apples and bananas, and you generally eat them with savoury courses, not sweet ones. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the only thing I can find regarding how they taste. Still it's better than no reference at all (at least I don't see any references in the first paragraph). http://www.bostonfoodandwhine.com/2008/06/26/what-does-a-tomato-taste-like/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.39.18 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Google the phrase "tomatoes are savory" and you get 2 pages: "Page 2 of 20 results (0.05 seconds)" (changing the spelling to savoury adds another 17 results). Google the phrase "tomatoes are sweet": Page 55 of about 22,600 results (0.14 seconds). It's a little bit embarrassing that Wikipedia has something like this wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.185.108 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's embarrasing that you rely on the number of Google results of a search without quotation marks to find out what certain fruits taste like. F. F. Fjodor (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotation marks are right there. I just thought the Google search results would help to illustrate my point (I mean the ratio is 1:1000). I guess it's possible that all 22000 of those people are wrong. Leave the arbitrary, unreferenced, inexpert opinion there if that's what this site is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.185.108 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact that there is a restaurant chain named "sweet tomatoes" shows the flaws in the logic of using Google hits as any sort of indicator. Ridernyc (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DblazekNGB, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I am the Executive Director of the National Garden Bureau. We have selected 2011 as the Year of the Tomato. I'd like to supply a link to our website under the listing "tomato" on Wikipedia. http://www.ngb.org/year_of/index.cfm?YOID=16

DblazekNGB (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Absolutely not! Please read WikiPedia's policies on spam and conflict of interest. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I must contradict! That page doesn't look like spam at all. It looks like a very good page. Please only cite wikipedia policies when they really apply which isn't the case here! --Krawunsel (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, too - this does not look like a site that is promoting any particular brand or product, but a more general promotion of the cultivation of produce. It would even be a "reliable source" if referenced for certain topics. I don't see it as violating either policy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Agreed - the site seems to provide encyclopedia-quality information not present in the current article, nor likely to be there if the article were to reach FA status. de Bivort 16:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with you sourcing to this site. (It appears reliable enough for general information, but I would recommend something better, like a horticulture book, for specific details.) I declined the request because it was just a request to add a link to a website for no apparent reason other than to drive traffic to it. Additionally, I don't see how 2011 being declared "Year of the tomato" by a non-notable organization merits a link to the organization's website. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
They're pretty notable-http://www.ngb.org/about/index.cfm-the 'year' stuff might go under popular culture, or some such. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
What they say about themselves does not indicate notability in any way. The notability criteria for organizations states that "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." The explicit criteria are that the organization must have in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. If notability can be established for this organization, then it probably should be mentioned in the article. I'm no fan on "in popular culture" sections, but I'm not involved in editing this article, so I'm not going to complain too much. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree the information that some group has chosen the Tomato for some sort of tittle will add no useful information about tomatos to an already long article. It might not be spam but it also adds nothing of value to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Unflappableoptimist, 15 July 2011

The entry on tomato states that the Council of the European Union gave a directive that tomatoes should be considered fruits. This occurs in the "Fruit or vegetable?" section of the entry. A source is listed, but after reading the source material, it is evident that the entry's wording is incorrect and the entire line should be deleted. The directive that is used as a source states that carrots should be considered fruits for the sake of the directive. This is obviously meant to be a way to clarify their uses for objective of the directive and not a way to reclassify tomatoes and carrots as fruits.

Unflappableoptimist (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Verified in source that it was specifically for the directive. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

typically red?

Seems rather unfounded to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.233.45 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sewage

I understand that tomato seeds pass undigested though the human gut, and so sewage plants are often surrounded by tomato plants. Anyone confirm? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever driven by a sewage treatment plant? Most of the "weeds" you see around those places are actually tomato plants.Brothernight (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have actually seen sewage treatment plants and have never seen tomato plants growing anywhere near one. As the soil in such places is very tough (because the sites are carefully chosen), and generally clay, one is not likely to find much of anything growing near one. Certainly, not in California. I find the statement unlikely, as that would mean that sewage from the treatment facility is seeping through the soil to the outside. On top of that, it also supposes that delicate tomato seeds have survived the harsh temperatures, chemical attacks and who knows what else in order to survive. Gingermint (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In Britain

In existing section:

Tomatoes were not grown in England until the 1590s, according to Smith. One of the earliest cultivators was John Gerard, a barber-surgeon.[6] Gerard's Herbal, published in 1597 and largely plagiarized from continental sources[citation needed],


The citation required for the plagiarism claim is supported by information at the URL: http://www.controverscial.com/John%20Gerard.htm

"There is however a cloud of controversy surrounding the original contents of the Herbal. It is believed that Gerard may have used a translation of Stirpium historiae pemptades sex (1583) by the Flemish botanist Rembertus Dodoens." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.x.jackson (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire section was too long. I reduced it to just pertinent information. Gingermint (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

New Picture

Hi,

Look at that Picture. That can be the new picture in the box. On that picture there is the plant, too. Sorry for my bad english...

A tomato plant

Gab997 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

The article as written claims that speakers in the Southeastern US pronounce "tomato" with the "ah" sound - as in the UK - and that other American speakers pronounce the word with the "ay" sound. I've lived in the Southeast my entire life and have never, ever heard another Southerner use the "ah" pronunciation (at least not ironically). The usual pronunciations you get around here are: "Tuh-MAY-tah," "MAY-ter," and "Tuh-MAY-ter," in roughly descending order of popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.71.103 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary for this edit by User:Dream Focus said "everyone down South says to-ma-to, as is proper, not just older generations". Prior to the edit, the article had only said that "older generations among" the South used that pronunciation. Over-generalisation, perhaps? I've never been in the south US, so please discuss it between yourselves. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've heard that someone looking at the lyrics of a song found it didn't make any sense: " 'I say tomato and you say tomato'... What the hell does this mean?" Myles325a (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I am also from the Southern United States and have never heard the 'ah' pronunciation, whether the speaker was older or otherwise.

Rotel&beans (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Kenyon and Knott Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, there are three pronuncations of the word 'tomato': "tuh-may-to"; "tuh-mah-toh"; and "tuh-matt-oh". I have heard the Canadian journalist Valerie Pringle use the third pronunciation. All three pronunciations are heard worldwide - the first is the most common one heard in the United States and Canada; the second is most common one heard in Britain, Ireland, and most Commonwealth countries (except Canada). The third pronunciation is the rarest but most frequently occurs in continental North America, especially Ontario and New York. 71.198.146.98 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Asterids

The entries on eggplant and potato indicate that tomatoes are in the same genus; both the eggplant and potato "scientific classification" sidebar indicates that they are also "(unranked): Asterids". Shouldn't this be included in the tomato scientific classification sidebar as well?

I'm not a biologist, so something subtle may have escaped me. Will someone knowledgeable please take care of this? Bill Jefferys (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the Asterids article and it is clear that it is appropriate to include this in the sidebar. Accordingly, I have made the change. Bill Jefferys (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit requested

In the first line ("Tomato may refer to both the plant (Solanum lycopersicum) and the edible, typically red, fruit which it bears.") The word "tomato" needs to be in italics or quotes, because of the use–mention distinction (it is mentioned, not used). That is clunky, though, so I suggest that the sentence be otherwise recast. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to make this change, but not reworded it substantially. Hope this suffices. sonia♫ 10:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

Under the section "Companion plants", there is a missing close-parentheses in the paragraph starting "Other plants with strong scents,". The list "(basil, oregano, spearmint" should be "(basil, oregano, spearmint)".

Kennyyounger (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for pointing this out--Jac16888 Talk 15:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tomato Records

This web site lists tomato records and provides the grower the lineage for tomatoes that grow large or giant tomatoes. http://tomato.vegetabletoplant.com Pomingo (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the specific product trade data held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database referring to the specific product 5) The addition of a link to reliable trade data could provide an appropriate contribution to the article related Thank you in advance for your attention.Divoc (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please paste it in here so we can consider it? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Article semi-protection

Anybody know why this article is semi-protected and seems to have been for a long time? 79.79.248.99 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The US city of Reynoldsburg, Ohio calls itself "The Birthplace of the Tomato"

This seems a very unlikely claim, given that the tomato originated in the Americas in prehistoric times and arrived in Europe in the 16th century. --Ef80 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, some people do seem to make that claim. Poor writing abounds on the planet. "Birthplace of selective tomato breeding on a commercial scale in North America" is apparently close to the truth, however. this historical article says "Alexander Livingston was the first person who succeeded in upgrading the wild tomato, developing different breeds and stabilizing the plants.", "Livingston's first breed of tomato, the Paragon, was introduced in 1870." and "In the 1937 yearbook of the Federal Department of Agriculture, it was declared that "half of the major varieties were a result of the abilities of the Livingstons to evaluate and perpetuate superior material in the tomato". Livingston's first breed of tomato, the Paragon, was introduced in 1870."
It is absurd to call tomatoes "wild" that were extensively cultivated in Europe well before that time, and were a crop of the Incas and Aztecs well before that. Various sources say that they were introduced to Europe in 1522 (and to England in 1596). Anyone who grows a crop in the traditional ways practices selective plant breeding ... Nadiatalent (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tomatoes not considered poisonous

Pioneer America, Volumes 11, Pioneer America Society, 1979, p. 112-113 argues that the the idea that people thought tomatoes were poisonous was a myth. The Encyclopedia America (the origin of the myth) did not list its sources, and earlier documents simply do not mention it.

Per Andrew Smith's "The Tomato In America," p. 40, 2001, "...while some Americans obviously did believe that tomatoes were poisonous, this phenomenon has been blown out of proportion by well-intentioned popular historians. Research has located only three references to the tomato's purported poisonous qualities published in America prior to 1860. One was from a reprinted British medical work, reflecing outmoded beliefs in Britain rather than in America. The second was a facetious comment published in a newspaper." The third, like twenty five possible references to a poisonous nature, were attempts "to explain the discrpancy between the tomato's lack of previous usage juxtaposed to its then current general consumption." Tomatos were not eaten because farmers did not know how to grow them, cooks did not have any recipes for them, and consumers were not so ready to consume unfamiliar foods; not because people thought they were poisonous.

Wikipedia does not mention the cherry tree incident in George Washington's biography, nor does it insist that Christopher Columbus sailed to prove the world was round, so it should not maintain other myths either. 74.236.132.45 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Tomato leaves and stems not toxic to humans...

Does anyone have any proof whatsoever to reference that A) the tomato plant itself contains solanine and B) they are toxic to humans in any amount? In the first case, clicking on the Wikipedia article for solanine leads to the dispute that tomato plants even contain solanine, rather they contain only tomatine. In the second case, the only citation given for tomato leaves' toxicity in humans appears to be a dead link. In any case, the toxicity example is still only one case, if it's even true.

Further, this very article links to the New York Times article about cooking with tomato leaves, which has a lot more information than simply "a small amount of leaves is probably not going to hurt you", as seems to be the implication. If the information is accurate, tomato leaves aren't going to be toxic to humans at all, no matter how much you eat, because the tomatine is bound with cholesterol in the gut and is not only passed through the digestive system, but takes the cholesterol with it, giving a health benefit as well. I've eaten tomato leaves, in fact I do regularly, and it does nothing. I realize that doesn't qualify as a verifiable reference, however it does lead me to be inclined to agree with the New York Times article, so there must me more out there on this.

I've looked it up as thoroughly as I can and have found nothing but old wives' tales about people "learning when they were growing up" not to eat the leaves, but NOTHING of scientific value. There's also at least one book, "Cooking in the Moment: A Year of Seasonal Recipes" by Andrea Reusing that has a recipe that calls for tomato leaves.

So, to make a long story short, this is a call to clean up the section talking about the seemingly non-existent toxicity of the leaves and stems (can't believe it's there in the first place, seeing as there is no source for it), and also a call for more references to the fact. There seems to be an abundance of myth, but I'll remind everyone that this is not the kind of thing that the section of an article here should be based on.184.167.224.119 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a mostly unexamined question, "Accused, Yes, but Probably Not a Killer" Probably no more dangerous than green tomatoes, which, as we all know, are fine fried. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is good at one thing, it's rooting out the truth in "I've always been told" myths. I've personally found it tough because a lot of the info out there on the alleged toxicity of tomato greens, IF they even cite sources, link to articles about solanine, not tomatine. So all this "nausea and vomiting and death!!!111" seems to just lead back to the wrong substance... BUT, my main point is that if there's no info out there supporting the toxicity allegations then why is it in the article?? Bizarre. 184.167.224.119 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add one other source I found, touting the benefits of eating tomatine: Google Book link184.167.224.119 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A compound that "kills bugs" is not likely to be non-toxic. I think in our article we want something like small amounts of leaves may be used for flavoring and green tomatoes are sometimes used in cooking, including the famous dish fried green tomatoes. We need to correctly identify tomatine but warn against tomato leaf tea or use as greens. We need a little better source than a newspaper too if we can find it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It turns out that potatoes have considerable solanine in them and that the amount varies greatly by variety. Poisoning is possible but rare if large amount of a variety with high solanine is eaten, particularly the peels. Tomatoes don't have much solanine as compared to potatoes and few eat that much of them. Interestingly one source says solanine is concentrated in the sweetest part of the tomato fruit, the ripe fruit. Just isn't enough of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
But something that's toxic to insects isn't necessarily going to be toxic to humans, and vice versa, so assumptions can't be made... From what I gather, humans have the ability to combine tomatine and cholesterol, but insects and possibly other mammals don't. It sucks that there hasn't been a whole lot written about the subject. However, that doesn't mean that popular opinion can be used to flesh out the article...
I still don't know where the "tomato leaf tea killed someone" thing comes from (the Times article cited says only that it made someone sick). The only case I could personally find of supposed tomato leaf poisoning was a reference to this footnote from an article that unfortunately gives a 404 error now:
"10/26/2010 According to Dr. Anna Dulaney, Clinical Toxicologist and Assistant Director of Education for the Carolinas Poison Center, since their database began in 1997 there has been only one reference to a child having a reaction related to consuming tomato leaves or stems. In that instance, the child made and consumed a "Pie" consisting of cedar wood chips, grass clippings, tomato leaves and various other items. That child vomited, but due to the large number of ingredients in the mixture, it is impossible to attribute the upset stomach to the consumption of tomato leaves. She noted that in their database, the largest number of tomato leaves consumed at one time was 5 or 6 and that there were no ill effects. (This footnote inserted by Dr. Lucy Bradley, NC State Extension Urban Horticulture Specialist 10/26/2010)"
So the child vomited from eating a "pie" with freaking wood chips and all kinds of other junk in it and someone decided it MUST have been the tomato leaves? Eye roll to that. By the way, I've consumed 8 or 10 leaves at a time WITH the stem and...nothing but a tasty dish. So surely there must be similar experiences out there that are documented. I'm just asking for people to keep an eye out for that.
In the meantime, if there isn't consensus that the three or four sources I linked to or mentioned above aren't enough to weight the section in favor of "non toxic", there certainly isn't enough out there to keep the section leaning toward "toxic", at least that I've been able to find. I did get a chuckle from the solanine article, as it sounds almost like we shouldn't eat potatoes or any other fruits or vegetables... Ludicrous, but I suppose we're stuck with what can be cited. Still, if potatoes aren't killing anyone and tomato plants have far less solanine, then it's hard to see where the dangerous human toxicity is. 184.167.224.119 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a matter of amount. Normal potatoes have quite a bit of solanine but even if you eat lots of potatoes with the peels on every day the amount is only a fraction of a dose that would produce symptoms. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tomato - considered poisonous

The article makes suggests that the tomato was considered poisonous in North America, without explaining why. The tomato may have been a catalyst to lead poisoning, by leaching lead from pewter plates and utensils. http://historymedren.about.com/od/dailylifesociety/a/bod_tomatoes.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimschott (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomatoes were considered poisonous due to their membership in the nightshade family, and resemblance to nightshade. At the time tomatoes were first making their way from the New World, lead poisoning was not a concern; women were using white lead as makeup. → ROUX ₪ 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If lead poisoning were a concern, women would not have used white lead as makeup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimschott (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status

Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question of origin

In the first paragraph of the article it is stated WITHOUT REFERENCE that tomatoes originated in Mexico. This is not encyclopedic at all. There are indications that tomatoes originated in South America, in the Andean valleys of what is today Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. Scholars are not sure whether tomatoes were cultivated first by the Aztec, by the Incas, or by previous civilizations or people in the American continent.

The introduction in this article therefore NEEDS TO be changed. I have nit been able to edit it as someone decided to make the article "semi-protected".

Here are some general references backing my claims:

http://www.britishtomatoes.co.uk/history

http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/tomatohistory.htm

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02859492#page-1

90.244.6.71 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the statement in the introduction is incorrect. Sources do not say the species originated in Mexico, just the cultivated form of it. However,
The first source, britishtomatoes.co.uk, is unreliable because it is basically a blog and never says where any of the info on the page came from, certainly nothing about "scholars".
The second source, homecooking.about.com, is also unreliable since it says nothing about the source of its info, again nothing about "scholars". It also says tomatoes were domesticated by Aztecs in Mexico.
The third and most scholarly source, states definitively that the ancestor of the domesticated tomato originated in the Andes but the domesticated tomato was developed in Mexico by the Aztecs.
So the statement that the cultivated tomato originated in Mexico appears to be correct but the statement about origin of the species is incorrect. Thanks for pointing out this error. I will fix it.
Jojalozzo 23:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

es.wikipedia.org: Solanum lycopersicum

Spanish wikipedia's Solanum lycopersicum (tomato) is a source of scholarly sources Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology Section Plagiarized

The third paragraph is taken word-for-word from the third paragraph of the about.com source cited at the end: http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/tomatohistory.htm

Also, I'm not sure how trustworthy about.com is as a source is the first place. Jumper4677 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014

Please remove "(although the leaves are)", since there is no evidence that leaves are toxic. They contain tomatine, not solanine, which is not known to cause any harm to humans. Marc.sevigny (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be changed in any article, particularly to remove a statement that something may be harmful. - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That, and plenty of sources state that tomato leaves are hazardous to human consumption, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

Please delete the following paragraph

Hybrid plants remain common, since they tend to be heavier producers, and sometimes combine unusual characteristics of heirloom tomatoes with the ruggedness of conventional commercial tomatoes.

My justification for the request is as follows Non Hybrid plants also remain common. Therfore there is no need to make this statement. There is no referrence here to back up the statement and I feel that all these attributes can also be attributed to some non Hybrid varieities. The statement, as it stands seems unsubstantiated, unneccessary, and biased against normal tomatoes (ie. non-hybridised varieties) For example: in Australia the open pollinated variety, Grosse Lisse, that is most widely grown, in home gardens, consistantly outperforms any other variety in most respects.

The main reason Grosse Lisse is not grown widely on commercial farms is that it does not travel and hold as well as hybrid varieties

Many non-hybrid open pollinated varieties are as "rugged" as any hybrid varieties...I can supply a list of open pollinated varieties that would be considered as "rugged" as any hybrid variety if you feel the need.

Your article also mentions that the worlds record holding tomato plant produced over 500Kg. It was not a Hybrid variety but it was an open pollinated variety

To reitterate...the statement is unsubstantiated and biased and possibly even inflammatory. 124.180.196.220 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your request. I have a few thoughts on this. (1) Whether content is inflammatory is not of concern to us here. For instance, our article on evolution causes great upset to many citizens of the Bible Belt and beyond. This has no bearing on our coverage of the core subject. (2) I don't find that the statement "hybrid plants remain common" contradicts your position, "Non Hybrid plants also remain common." I don't think deleting the paragraph is the solution here. A better wording can probably be achieved, something along the lines of, "both hybrid and non-hybrid varieties remain common". I'd caution against the use of "normal" or "natural" in this context as hybrids do occur in nature and therefore may be considered normal. The ruggedness statement, by your own admission, seems not entirely undeserved, but perhaps should be qualified in referring to shelf-life rather than vegetative properties. I don't have time to research and draft this in detail right now, so I'll leave the request open for someone else, or myself at a later time. Again, thanks for pointing out where we may be able to improve. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Yeah don't see a problem. The preceding sentence states that heirlooms are becoming more popular so this is where the "hybrids are still common" stuff stems from. I'll go ahead and tag it for a citation needed though Cannolis (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

Tomato leaves are not poisonous as stated on this page under History --> Etymology and pronunciation. Please remove "(although the leaves are)" from this section.

[1] [2] 208.104.41.181 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC) 208.104.41.181 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Ross Goddard

References

  1. ^ Friedman, Mendel. "Feeding of Potato, Tomato and Eggplant Alkaloids Affects". The journal of nutrition.
  2. ^ Betty, Garden. "Tomato leaves are toxic myth".
Not done: The study, as far as I can tell, does not draw conclusions, rather they write: "Because humans seem to be more sensitive than rodents to the toxicological effects of glycoalkaloids (Morris and Lee 1984), it is difficult to estimate a human "margin of safety" based on our studies in mice without answers to some of [the above] questions." (My emphasis.) -- Sam Sing! 11:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


Fruit, vegetable, or berry internationally

Should there be added that there is a certain confusion internationally, as in some countries fruits and vegetables are purely culinary terms? Having a separate word for the fruit for must of them the tomato, and many others are berries?Ivan2007 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A vegetable is a plant, part of a plant, or the edible portion of a plant. A fruit is the developed ovary of a plant or the edible developed ovary of a plant. Fruits are a subset of plants. Berries are a subset of both fruits and vegetables. So when someone says a tomato is a fruit not a vegetable it's like saying Lake Superior is not a body of water it's a lake. So a tomato is a vegetable and a fruit and a berry. People's insistence on it being a fruit not a vegetable is because it does not need to be pressure processed for home canning. As for other definitions of fruit or vegetable such as culinary there are no standard definitions. This controversy does not appear to have been applied to other fruits commonly referred to as vegetables (green beans, squash, cucumbers, eggplant, peppers, okra, corn, peas, etc).Weetoddid (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that a heading would have a question mark: Fruit or Vegetable? The question defines the context- culinary. Therefore the answer is simple, it's a vegetable. Fruit has both a botanical and culinary usage whereas vegetable has only a culinary usage.Lashes1776 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this uncited sentance from the article is very accurate: "However, the tomato has a much lower sugar content than other edible fruits, and is therefore not as sweet.". It seems to be ignoring all the other fruits that are not 'culinary fruits' - courgettes and other squashes, aubergines, okra, beans, peppers, etc.

The section mentions "this dispute" without first establishing that there is a dispute about tomatoes being a fruit or a vegetable. It might be good to add something about when and how the question of whether the tomato is a fruit or a vegetable was popularized. sorsoup (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Aversion to Raw (Uncooked) Tomatoes

A small minority of the population (including me), has a very potent visceral reaction to the taste and smell of the raw tomato. The reaction I have is an instant gag reflex, and the taste is an overwhelming bitter flavor that masks the flavor of most anything else I eat. It is not the difference between a truly ripened tomato versus commercially artificially ripened tomato, but an inherent chemical receptor reaction, not unlike cilantro. In my experience, the compound seems to be concentrated in the juice around the seeds. The flesh and ribs are tolerable. It is not a reaction to texture of the seeds, or the jelly-like juice around the seeds. Most of those adverse to raw tomatoes do consume and often enjoy well-cooked tomatoes, i.e. tomato paste, pasta sauces, oven-baked 'sun-dried' tomatoes. Heat for a long duration (in excess of 1 hour cooking) and/or removal of the seeds seem to eliminate the offending compound. Also, combining with a fatty compound seems to lessen the bitter flavor of raw tomato (i.e. guacamole with raw tomato added), but does not completely eliminate it.

I've looked for hard science behind my experiences, yet it eludes me. I've come across a few blogs which refer to the same conclusions I have.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/05/29/tasters-choice-why-i-hate-raw-tomatoes-and-you-dont/ http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/i-admit-it-i-hate-tomatoes?xg_source=activity http://whippedtheblog.com/2011/07/11/tackling-raw-tomatoes-one-bite-at-a-time/

IcepickD (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It can happen, I guess. I feel sorry that you cannot enjoy a BLT or freshly cut tomatoes in a salad, as 90+ of the rest of us can. But if cooked sauces and so forth are tasty to you, that's great. Thanks for the link. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

IcepickD (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I'm not asking for pity and dismissal, I'm asking for knowledge and science.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Under the "names" heading, the nitpicking link erroneously goes to the wrong page. Please change it to go to the nitpicking_(pastime) page or the disambiguation page, as it refers to pointing minor fault and not picking nits off one's head. Also, sorry for nitpicking. Thank you. 68.117.84.153 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done because nitpicking (pastime) simply redirects back to nitpicking - I have however removed the pipe from nitpicking (sport) to avoid a redirect, as that article includes discussion of "fastidious, meticulous attention to detail" in the third paragraph. - Arjayay (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tomato. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 02:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"German werewolf myths"

The scientific species epithet lycopersicum means "wolf peach", and comes from German werewolf myths. These legends said that deadly nightshade was used by witches and sorcerers in potions to transform themselves into werewolves, so the tomato's similar, but much larger, fruit was called the "wolf peach" when it arrived in Europe.

This ia some horrible nonsense. The word lycopersicum comes from Greek and it was first used by Galen to describe a plant, which some sources call unidentified, while others identify as this. So how a term coined in ancient Greek could possibly have anything to do with German myths??? This bullshit is even sourced. 159.205.240.233 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

mm tomatoes originate in S America, right? Galen would not have known it.
Here is what the source says:

THE EDIBLE WOLF PEACH Tomatoes belong to the genus Lycopersicon, which means “wolf peach,” from the Greek �´�� (wolf) and ��� �´� (Persian, which alludes to Persian apple, the appellation Europeans first bestowed on the peach when it arrived from China via Persia). This is a direct translation from another term for the fruit, the German Wolfpfirsich. However did such an agreeable fruit acquire such a disagreeable name? It originates in the werewolf myth. Early Renaissance Europeans were suspicious of the tomato upon its arrival from South America because of its striking likeness to deadly nightshade (Atropus belladonna—the source of atropine*). German legend claims that witches used nightshade to summon werewolves, and what could be more attractive to a werewolf than nightshade with a berry the size of a peach? Although modern German speakers know tomatoes as Tomaten or Paradeisäpfel, the earliest German name for tomatoes was Wolfpfirsich — “wolf peach.” Sadly, it took years before the tomato was widely recognized as harmless and incorporated into European cuisines. In the 18th century, Carl Linnaeus, noting the werewolf legend, applied his new binomial nomenclature system to name the tomato Lycopersicon esculentum, the “edible wolf peach.” Despite the charm of the history behind it, the Linnaean classification may be supplanted by a phylogenetic classification that would group the tomato plant based on its evolutionary relationship to other organisms; the name, Solanum lycopersicum, has been suggested. - Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese have a different interpretation of "wolf peach", botanically related and almost identical in morphology (only much smaller) to the Solanum berry, Lycium barbarum which is more geographically oriented for etymology in Linnaeus nomenclature. Supposedly cultivated in China for hundreds of years before the tomato, this fruit's name has been westernized to "goji", Chinese for "gou" (dog) "ji" fruit, or wolfberry, which Chinese legend says derived from ancient farmers seeing wolves taking shelter among the dense wolfberry vines. --Zefr (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Except that the boxthorns of Lycium differ profoundly in anatomy from Solanum nightshades, and that the Chinese often borrow their own words in order to create transliterations, in that "gou qi" does not mean "wolf (berry/seed)," but is a transliteration of the Persian word for the plant. That, and the generic name Lycium refers to a region in the Anatolian Peninsula.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oncotarget

Per our article, this is likely a predatory publisher and we shouldn't cite it. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Separate discussion of protected status in European regions

I removed the content below from the Production section because it has low relevance to actual production and vague importance overall per WP:UNDUE. Also, the source cited here, just lists the regions, with no encyclopedic background for why these regions are "protected" and why this is significant for a discussion about tomato production. Please discuss whether this content should be included. --Zefr (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Within the EU, there are several areas that grow tomatoes with Protected Geographical Status. These include:

Plant safety

There is a contradiction in this section. First, the author says, "...green unripe fruit of the tomato plant...contain the poison solanine, which is toxic to humans and animals." But at the end of the paragraph, the author says, "The fresh fruit is, however, harmless." The problem in the wording is that green unripe fruit can also be considered fresh (assuming, of course, that it's not cooked, dried, or frozen), yet it cannot be both toxic and harmless. Perhaps the author meant to say that the RED RIPE fruit is harmless. I am suggesting that the words "fresh fruit" be changed to "ripe" or "red ripe." 188.248.255.253 (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Rick Glaser, March 26, 2010.

When I was checking the background on this, I found that in fact that section was rather out of date. Tomatoes are now known to contain tomatine, which is not as toxic as solanine. I've rewritten the section, with a couple more references. Hopefully it's clearer now. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a variety of tomato that stays green after it ripens. This variety is used to make "fried green tomatoes", not unripe tomatoes. According to Cornell University's Department of Animal Science, "Production of solanum-type glycoalkaloids is favored by the same conditions that promote the development of chlorophyll. Therefore, the concentration of these glycoalkaloids is highest in potato sprouts and green potato skins, and tomato vines and green tomatoes. Care should be taken to prevent the exposure of potatoes to sunlight. These alkaloids are not destroyed by cooking or drying at high temperatures. New potato varieties can not be introduced unless they contain less than 20 mg glycoalkaloids/100 g." Here is the URL to the cited warning posted by Cornell University: http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/toxicagents/steroid.html Brothernight (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There certainly are varieties that stay green—see the Varieties section of the article. Searching for fried green tomatoes, however, the recipes that give any detail beyond 'green' do suggest that unripe tomatoes are used: [2], [3], [4], as does the Wikipedia article. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The section on classification says the tomato does not have alkaloids typical of Solanum. Actually tomatine is related to solanine, albeit less poisonous. Both are steroidal glycosides, not tropine-type alkaloids. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Three years ago Thursday, the article was indefinitely semiprotected due to vandalism. Sometimes this is necessary (see the protection log for Elephant, including the pending changes log), but it's still not a good idea to protect for several years without occasional attempts at unprotection, so I've removed protection. If vandalism resumes, please ask me to restore semiprotection, or if you're an admin, please restore it yourself. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the vandalism is starting up to start up again.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, @Nyttend:, I'm really thinking that this unprotection isn't going to work out for now.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Three years ago Thursday, the article was indefinitely semiprotected due to vandalism. Sometimes this is necessary (see the protection log for Elephant, including the pending changes log), but it's still not a good idea to protect for several years without occasional attempts at unprotection, so I've removed protection. If vandalism resumes, please ask me to restore semiprotection, or if you're an admin, please restore it yourself. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the vandalism is starting up to start up again.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, @Nyttend:, I'm really thinking that this unprotection isn't going to work out for now.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request 11-11-16

Hi, I Grow tomatoes on a commercial base in the Netherlands and I noticed that one important tomato pest is missing in the list. I'm talking about Tomato russet mite ( aculops lycopersici) Next to nothing is mentioned on this mite on Wiki sow I started a page for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aculops_lycopersici.

Pleas link it in this artikel as I can assure you that it is a big problem in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkhoest (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I added a sentence and reference under Diseases and pests. --Zefr (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zefr: I don't understand why you reverted my edit. The USDA link I gave goes directly to the data table, whereas the one you put just gives a "Foods List" and then you need to figure out what to click on to get to the data. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Experience shows that the USDA list of foods analyzed is continually increasing, a process that changes the URL for individual foods, whereas the URL for the search term remains the same. There are some editors systematically going from food to food to change the URL this way. --Zefr (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Energy value

I have removed the value for the energy content from the table because it is inconsistent with the other values in the table. The USDA database gives 74 kJ, but this is not consistent with their own formula, which says the number of kilocalories is 4*(protein+non-fibre carbs)+9*fat. Multiplying this by 4.184 gives 67 kJ. Even if one does not exclude the fibre, one still gets a different number from the 74 kJ they report. I don't know how to explain why there is this discrepancy. I have simply removed the number because when I tried to put the value which is consistent with the USDA values for protein, carbohydrate, and fat, it was removed as "original research". Last year I was part of a long debate about whether we should put statements in Wikipedia which are obviously false, just because they come from what is usually considered a reliable source. In the end the others agreed to delete the false statement. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you believe there is a more reliable source for the energy value, please provide the source and the value from it. Your WPOR remains without value here in WP. There really is a simple way to address your concern - just provide a more reliable source with the value you understand is correct. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: After rereading the USDA explanation (here, page 14) I see that they actually only say that they use the "4, 4, 9" method for "multi-ingredient processed foods", and that they use so-called "Atwater calorie factors" for other foods, referencing a USDA document from 1973. The database actually gives the factors used for each food, and for tomato it gives 3.57, 2.44, and 8.37 kcal/g for carbohydrate, protein, and fat. I do not find these numbers though in the 1973 document, so I don't know how they came up with them. The document mentions tomatoes briefly (p. 38), but only to say that they use the factors for fruit for tomatoes and rhubarb. The factors for fruit are given in Table 20 (p. 49) as 3.60, 3.36, and 8.37, so only the "fat" number corresponds to what the database uses. Also, the database counts the 1.2 g of "fibre" as carbohydrate and thus gives it 3.57 kcal/g, which is clearly wrong. This is the main reason why I think the figure of 74 kJ is too high.
In any case, I do not agree that one needs to provide a reliable source in order to delete something from Wikipedia! Deleting is not original research, even if it involves doing some thinking and calculating. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
See prior response. Jytdog (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog and Zefr: By the way, I just came across another example of where the USDA database exaggerates the amount of energy. I ate a yellow pepper the other day, and it seemed sweet, so I looked up Bell pepper and clicked on the link to the USDA site. It says 20 kcal per 100 grams, and this is calculated using the same three factors as those I mentioned above (3.57, 2.44, & 8.37). Most of these calories come from the carbohydrate, but in fact there is only 2.4 g of sugar, and no starch. The total carbohydrate ("by difference") is given as 4.64 g. That means they're giving peppers 3.57×(4.64−2.40)=7.9968 kcal for the non-sugar, non-starch "carbohydrate"! That's 8 out of the 20 kcals. Seems totally unjustified to me. I'm not even sure that there is that much carbohydrate (4.64 g), even if you count the fibre, because it says there's only 1.7 g fibre. So the sugar and fibre together makes only 4.1 g. Anyway, fibre does not give you 3.57 kcal per gram. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Eric Kvaalen: while I admire your attention to the small details of calculating food energy, I feel it is time to accept the general (even if approximate) value of USDA data presentations as the best available information for the encyclopedia per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As there would need to be a secondary source to refute the USDA database, the burden is on you to find such a source to support your assertions. I don't think you'll find it, so please refrain from trying to make such changes in the nutrition tables for different foods. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, your own research is not relevant in WP. Everything here depends on reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


@Jytdog and Zefr: I have other things to do than argue with you two. But let me just say that it is common knowledge, with plenty of sources, that "fibre" does not provide 3 kcal/g or more, and repeat that the USDA database is not a reliable source when it makes mistakes like this. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate caption in section 3.7

The image <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#/media/File:End_of_Summer_Tomatoes.jpg>, in section 3.7 Modern Commercial Varieties, has an inaccurate caption. The pictured tomatoes exhibiting yellow shoulders have, contrary to the caption, ripened uniformly; the yellow shoulders are a physiological disorder, not under ripe fruits. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#/media/File:End_of_Summer_Tomatoes.jpg> for further explanation of yellow shoulder on tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.194.106 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tomato. 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:

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) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017

Here is a citation for TOMATO, Section 4.5 Pollinators, third paragraph, first "CITATION NEEDED" in the text below (that the bumble bee is a sonicating pollinator of tomatoes and is "cultred" for use in hydroponics or greenhouses)(Not sure about the format. and I have not made enough edits to access this semi-protected page.) 


Frankie, Gordon and Robbin W. Thorpe, Rollin E. Coville, Barbara Ertter, California Bees & Blooms / A Guide for Gardeners and Naturalists (2014) Heyday: Berkeley, California AND California Native Plant Society: Sacramento, California. (Page 52.)

The citation also states, and may therefor justify the addition of the following sentence in the paragraph:

"Many bumblebees, especially the California bumble bee (Bombus californicas) have an especially long tongue, allowing it to efficiently take nectar from several California native plants as well as the deep flower of the tomato. "

ORIGINAL TEXT: This is not the same as self-pollination, despite the common claim that tomatoes do so. That tomatoes pollinate themselves poorly without outside aid is clearly shown in greenhouse situations, where pollination must be aided by artificial wind, vibration of the plants (one brand of vibrator is a wand called an "electric bee" that is used manually), or more often today, by cultured bumblebees.[citation needed] The anther of a tomato flower is shaped like a hollow tube, with the pollen produced within the structure, rather than on the surface, as in most species. The pollen moves through pores in the anther, but very little pollen is shed without some kind of externally-induced motion. The best source of outside motion is a sonicating bee, such as a bumblebee, or the original wild halictid pollinator. In an outdoors setting, wind or animals usually provide sufficient motion to produce commercially viable crops.[citation needed]


Rhgray (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

List of tomato cultivars.....

This topic should be in the See also section

It's already linked in the "Varieties" section. Deli nk (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
And logically should stay there to facilitate users reading for that specific information. --Zefr (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost all unsourced

The following is almost all unsourced and was moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them. Please also fix the WP:RELTIME issue when you do (nothing is "current" in WP)

Wild species

Including Solanum lycopersicum, currently 13 species are recognized in Solanum section Lycopersicon. Three of these species — S. cheesmaniae, galapagense, and pimpinellifolium — are fully cross compatible with domestic tomato. Four more species—S. chmielewskii, S. habrochaites, S. neorickii, and S. pennelli—can be readily crossed with domestic tomato, with some limitations. Five species—S. arcanum, S. chilense, S. corneliomulleri, S. huaylasense, and S. peruvianum—can be crossed with domestic tomato with difficulty and usually require embryo rescue to produce viable plants. The Lycopersicon section has not been fully sampled within wild species in the South American range, so new species may be added in the future.[citation needed]

Solanum section Lycopersicoides and section Juglandifolium are represented by two species each that are considered bridge species genetically intermediate between tomato and non-tuber bearing potato species. S. lycopersicoides can be crossed with domestic tomato and introgression lines[1] have been developed. This species was significant in moving the domestic tomato from separate genus status into the Solanum group because it directly links the tomato into the potato family.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Tomato Genetics Resource Center – Solanum lycopersicoides introgression lines. Tgrc.ucdavis.edu. Retrieved on 5 September 2013.

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Tomato

Is it a vegetable or fruit Joethevoss (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

"Change Tomato to a fruit because it has seeds." LozP (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is clear on the topic. Deli nk (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A new semi-protected edit request

Currently, in the section "In popular culture" of the article, there is a mention of a bill in Ontario's legislature to name tomato as the province's official vegetable and to designate a day for it:

In Ontario, Canada, member of provincial parliament Mike Colle named the tomato the official vegetable of the province and designated 15 July as Tomato Day under the Tomato Act in 2016.[1][2]

  1. ^ "Queen's Park This Week: Will new carding rules make a difference?". tvo.org. 24 March 2016.
  2. ^ Bill 179, Tomato Act, 2016 Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The wording makes it sound like the tomato has indeed become the province's official vegetable, and the said Tomato Day established. But in fact, his Bill 179 failed to pass (it did not even receive a debate before it died; sources for verification are provided below), meaning that there was no official designation and no day established.

Therefore, I propose that the paragraph above be replaced with the following one. There is also some related information added to the new version. Note: If you decide to go ahead with this edit request, do not copy the horizontal separator (---- in wikicode) and anything below it to the article, otherwise there will be error.

In Ontario, Canada, member of provincial parliament Mike Colle introduced a private member's bill in March 2016 to name the tomato as the official vegetable of the province and to designate 15 July as Tomato Day, in order to acknowledge the tomato's importance in Ontario's agriculture.[1][2] The bill did not pass in the legislature and no official designations were made.[3]

  1. ^ Bill 179, Tomato Act, 2016 Legislative Assembly of Ontario
  2. ^ "Queen's Park This Week: Will new carding rules make a difference?". tvo.org. 24 March 2016.
  3. ^ "From the Great Ketchup Wars to combating human trafficking: the silly and the serious private members' bills of 2016". tvo.org. 27 December 2016.

Thanks for your help. 162.156.112.183 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks especially for the clear request, which saves us considerable amounts of time. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Donald Duck/Hilter cartoon

I have posted the following cartoon in the "In popular culture" section.

[[:File: Derfuehrersfaceposter.JPG|thumb|left|Donald Duck throws a tomato at Hitler in the 1943 propaganda film Der Fuehrer's Face.]]

I felt that it was entirely appropriate for the subject - i.e. it is a very clear example of a depiction of a tomato in popular fiction, and was a useful addition to the page. However, Zefr reverted my edit at record speed with the argument that it "Doesn't add anything significant, and could be offensive to some" (at least recognizing that my edit was "good faith", thank you!). I asked Zefr who, except for Neo-Nazis, could be offended by a cartoon of Hitler being humiliated by Donald Duck, and got the answer that it might be "offensive to descendants of Holocaust victims who read Wikipedia". This seems to me highly improbable, to say the least. If at the time when this film was made the cartoon could have been shown to the inmates of Nazi concentration camps, I think that they would have been cheered up by it - it would have been the guards and other Nazis who would have been offended. Anyway, Zefr suggested that I take it up on this page, and I am following this suggestion. Comments, anybody? Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you're persisting with this. It's offensive because it refers to Hitler and shows a swastika. It's neither 'popular' nor 'cultural'. The section already refers to La Tomatina - if you're fond of tomato-throwing, why not use this image? --Zefr (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It shows Hitler and a swastika as part of an anti-Nazi propaganda of a country which was up in arms against Hitler and crushed him two years after the cartoon was published. Publishing it was part of keeping Americans keyed up in the war to destroy Hitler. And if Donald Duck is not part of American popular culture, what is? Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC) 22:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I did place the La Tomatina photo, it is certainly relevant to the page. It is, however, a different kind of tomato-throwing - a kind of a bit messy popular entertainment. The people who throw tomatoes in this Spanish event have nothing against the people targeted, it is just a kind of wild "horseplay". This is very distinct from the practice of throwing tomatoes (preferably rotten ones) at somebody with the conscious and specific intention to demonstrate hostility and contempt and to humiliate your target person. That is precisely what was intended with the image of Donald Duck throwing a tomato in Hitler's face - which makes it so ridiculous to assert that it would offend Holocuast survivors. As I said, the only ones whose feelings might be offended are Hitler fans.

Solanum lycopersicum subspecies ?

Who agrees that beefsteak tomatoes and small bosai like cherry tomato plants should be different subspecies?

Orengi Harvey (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A small correction

Under heading 3: History: In the first paragraph, next-to-last sentence: change "contains" to "contain". (TWO things -- leaves and immature fruit -- "contain".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard41 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

US-centrism in the Fruit vs Vegetable section

The fruit vs vegetable section is too US-centric, and needs more information about views outside the United States. In the United Kingdom, tomatoes are usually regarded as fruits, for instance. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Change eggplant to aubergine Sam te Man (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Eggplant is the name of the English Wikipedia article. --Zefr (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

arthritis

Should a mention of their containing a toxin making them bad for people with arthritis get a mention here? Mayumashu (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Upgrading?

"Alexander W. Livingston was the first person who succeeded in upgrading the wild tomato," What is it a damned cell phone? Botanists to not "upgrade" plants. Plants are a biological organism. Just like you can't "upgrade" your son or daughter. Perhaps the writer meant "domesticated"? If Livingston improved the "wild tomato" as the writer claims, then it was domesticated, not "upgraded" like an Ipad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.230.31 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2016 March (UTC)

Agreed, upgrading is an odd word choice 67.247.101.73 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

'may have been'

It's of little relevance including conjecture in an article, especially when it goes without saying that there can be no source, reference or citation to it. It doesn't add anything to the main topic so it's of questionable value as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


"may have been the first to transfer the small yellow tomato to Europe"

It’s doubtful this type of conjecture adds anything of value to this article. Eventually a European settler would have exported it to Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

I want to move one sentence to its preceding paragraph. Currently, the introductory paragraph of the history section leaps from the wild tomato plant to the Spanish bringing it to Europe, ignoring Mesoamerican history until the following paragraph. The first subsection Mesoamerica suffers not at all by moving its first sentence up into the introduction, and the flow of the introduction is improved. The sentence is

Aztecs and other peoples in Mesoamerica were the first to have domesticated the fruit and used in their cooking.

I would like it moved into the introductory paragraph thusly:

The wild ancestor of the tomato is native to western South America.[1] These wild versions were the size of peas.[1] Aztecs and other peoples in Mesoamerica were the first to have domesticated the fruit and used in their cooking. The Spanish first introduced tomatoes to Europe, where they became used in Spanish food. In France, Italy and northern Europe, the tomato was initially grown as an ornamental plant. It was regarded with suspicion as a food because botanists recognized it as a nightshade, a relative of the poisonous belladonna.[2] This was exacerbated by the interaction of the tomato's acidic juice with pewter plates.[3] The leaves and immature fruit contains tomatine, which in large quantities would be toxic. However, the ripe fruit contains no tomatine.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b Estabrook, Barry (22 July 2015). "Why Is This Wild, Pea-Sized Tomato So Important?". Smithsonian Journeys Quarterly. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference eb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Why the Tomato Was Feared in Europe for More Than 200 Years — Smithsonian
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mcgee-NYT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Mesoamerica

The exact date of domestication is unknown; by 500 BC, it was already being cultivated in southern Mexico and probably other areas. Sohowaboutthis (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Thanks! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

in the etymology part of the article it says navel#) where it should say navel') at the end of the explanation of the meaning of Xitomatl/jitomate. would someone with privileges edit this minor edit for me? thank you! Aozeba (15 Dec 20)

New talk page topics go to the bottom of the page, and can be initiated by clicking "New section". The minor edit was completed. Zefr (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Tomatoes being collected from the field, Maharashtra, India

The picture with this caption is a generic image of green tomatoes growing on a vine. What file was originally posted there? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Move “Fruit versus vegetable” subsection

I think that the sub-section on the age-old fruit-versus-vegetable debate does not belong in the Name section. However, I can’t decide whether it should go in the Botany section or the History section. My inclination is for it to go at the end of the Botany section. Any suggestions, thoughts, ideas? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

About text should be changed from "This article is about the plant and the fruit." to "This article is about the plant and the berry." because in the next line it is written "The tomato is the edible berry". DomantasZ (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Have removed the description from the hatnote as it's sufficient to describe the subject in the introduction. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The pronunciation of 'tomato' in British English(UK)

The pronunciation of tomato in UK is “ təˈmɑː.təʊ ” , isn't “ /təˈmɑːtoʊ/ ”. I've searched on 2 Cambridge Dictionaries. Share ing is carrying (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Tomato Flower

Adding the information that the tomato flower is also referred to as a perfect flower, since it has both male and female parts, could help the reader understand the flower better. --Destructo66 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ontario, lol

Does a failed private member's bill at Queen's Park really merit a mention in this article? Canada doesn't even make the top 10 tomato-growing countries. I don't want a reply, only for an editor with access -- and, logically, one who agrees with my point -- to delete this nonsense. Greetings from Ottawa. 76.69.87.247 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"North America"

Section should be renamed either "United States" (currently, every mention is of that country) or "United States and Canada" (if Canadian mentions are to be included in the future) as the ancestral home of tomatoes, México, is obviously in North America. 76.69.87.171 (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Might as well just say "United States", anyway. There's not one word about Canada in that blurb. 76.69.87.247 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

After (or immediately before) the following:

"Thomas Jefferson, who ate tomatoes in Paris, sent some seeds back to America.[30]: 28"

add:

Some early American advocates of the culinary use of the tomato included Michele Felice Cornè and Robert Gibbon Johnson.[1]


Thank you. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McCue, George Allen (November 1952). "The History of the Use of the Tomato: An Annotated Bibliography". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 39 (4). Missouri Botanical Garden Press: 336–338. doi:10.2307/2399094.

Please remove unreferenced material

There's a lot of unreferenced material here for which editors haven't been able to provide references for over five years. Such material must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2022 (2)

In this phrase: 

their traditional pollinators, (probably a species of halictid bee) did

Please remove the comma, since it doesn't fit with the parentheses. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2022

Please remove this bit from the introduction: 

Tomatoes are a significant source of [[umami]] flavor.<ref name="fleming" /> It is consumed in diverse ways: raw or cooked, and in many dishes, sauces, [[salads]], and drinks. While tomatoes are [[fruit]]s—[[botanically]] classified as [[Berry (botany)|berries]]—they are commonly used [[Culinary arts|culinarily]] as a [[vegetable]] ingredient or [[side dish]].<ref name="eb" />

and replace it with this: 

Tomatoes are a significant source of [[umami]] flavor.<ref name="fleming" /> They are consumed in diverse ways: raw or cooked, and in many dishes, sauces, [[salads]], and drinks. While tomatoes are [[fruit]]s—[[botanically]] classified as berries—they are commonly used [[Culinary arts|culinarily]] as a [[vegetable]] ingredient or [[side dish]].<ref name="eb" />

It's a bad idea to shift from "Tomatoes" to "It" in the first/second sentences (the structure makes sentence #2 sound like it's talking about the consumption of umami flavour, not the consumption of tomatoes), and Berry (botany) is linked at the beginning of the introduction, just a few sentences earlier. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

In the first paragraph under section 3.0 "History", change the last 2 sentences: 

The leaves and immature fruit contains [[tomatine]], which in large quantities would be toxic. However, the ripe fruit contains no tomatine.<ref name="Mcgee-NYT" />

to: 

The leaves and fruit contain [[tomatine]], which in large quantities would be toxic. However, the ripe fruit contains a much lower amount of tomatine than the immature fruit.<ref name="Mcgee-NYT" />

Details: Correct grammar in first sentence: "contains" -> "contain". Move "immature" from first sentence to second sentence. Expand last 2 words in second sentence.

Reason: The second sentence is contradictory and false, and the first sentence is relatedly misleading. It is clearly outlined and stated further in the article, and in the leader and body of the linked article on tomatine, that the ripe tomato does contain tomatine, just in lower quantity than the immature fruit and other parts of the plant such as leaves and stems. 97.32.2.54 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! –CWenger (^ • @) 18:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


Suggest re-evaluation of "pewter plates" claim

The source is rather weak (a general interest article) and this makes little sense. Many foods are acidic. Eg apples, which they would presumably have had access to. Seems very unlikely that tomatoes would have had this reaction where many other foods wouldn't - or would have had in equal measure. Suggest removal of the pewter plate claim.

Salmonella

Tomatoes were linked to seven Salmonella outbreaks between 1990 and 2005,[102] and may have been the cause of a salmonellosis outbreak causing 172 illnesses in 18 US states in 2006.[103]

But tomatoes can't cause salmonella - the cause of salmonella is a bacteria. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Help people locate what their searching for.

Recommendation: Change the redirect attached to "Tomato varieties" from "Tomato" to "List of tomato cultivars"

Issue: When searching within pages for "tomato varieties" the first item on the list of results is "there is a page named 'Tomato varieties' on Wikipedia." When this link is selected the system redirects to the page named "Tomato" where there is no list of varieties. If the "tomato varieties" link in the redirect pop-up is selected the reader arrives at a page that has been decommissioned.

Another item on the list of results is "List of tomato cultivars." (I doubt the average reader knows what "cultivars" means: it is a botanical term, per Oxford Languages, "a plant variety that has been produced in cultivation by selective breeding.")

At the top of the page is the statement "There are more than 10'000 tomato varieties available."

The first section is named "Table of Tomatoes" and contains a list of varieties of tomato and pertinent stats. HMile (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done this.
JeffUK 12:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

Under the "Records"subheading the article states, "As of 2008, the heaviest tomato harvested weighed 3.51 kg (7 lb 12 oz), was of the cultivar "Delicious", and was grown by Gordon Graham of Edmond, Oklahoma in 1986." This record has been updated as of October 8th of 2022, (redacted - copyright violation - Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)) JPR09 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC) <https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/heaviest-tomato#:~:text=Grown%20by%20Del%20and%20Julie,32.5%20inches%20(82.55%20cm).>

 Not done for now: @JPR09: as written, this is copied directly from the source and constitutes a copyright violation. Can you re-word so that this updated fact can be included in the article? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

I want to change the botany section of an article on tomatoes providing a new information. Genetics and genetic modification, tomatoes contain more chromosomes than humans.[1] Superman12345678910 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That source doesn't seem reliable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't understand, how this source isn't reliable. Please assist me. Superman12345678910 (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
They have no editorial team and their about us doesn't tell me much other than they're a bunch of people. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wionews.com/web-stories/science/7-things-science-still-cant-explain-1681372569841. {{cite news}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help); External link in |first1= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tomato/Archive_2&oldid=1250303011"