Jump to content

Talk:Vegetable/Archive 1

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

Criticism

There's no section on the various criticisms leveled at vegetables. Not everyone likes them you know, and have intelligent arguments against vegetables.

And yet the meat section is heavily biased.--72.74.125.188 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Most People Hate Them. Especially Kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.151.71 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One coudl have a whole article on "human attitudes towards vegetables", but it would have to be based on reliable sources (with statistics, broad and preferably international span, etc.), and of course it would have to discuss each vegetable separately (people who love cauliflower may hate broccoli, etc.) I do not know where one could begin to look for such data. Until then, it is better to leave taste matters out of the article. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fruit/vegetable

Vegetable is a nutritional and culinary term denoting any part of a plant that is commonly consumed by humans as food, but is not regarded as a culinary fruit, nut, herb, or spice.

Uhhh, what about grains? I'm going to add that.

This page has a contradiction in it, it says "Vegetable is not a botanical term and so there is no contradiction in a plant part being a fruit botanically and being considered a vegetable." But above that it says that a vegetable cannot be considered a "culinary fruit". What am I missing?

-- Cardozo 05-0ct-2005

Not all "botanical fruits" are "culinary fruits", for example the tomato is a "botanical fruit" but you wouldn't put it in a fruit salad or on ice-cream.--ChadThomson 08:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a language problem, not about botany or culinary uses of fruits and vegetables. Vegetable is a culinary term primarily; it's other usage as an agricultural term doesn't dilineate the uses in the kitchen or in the botanical sense. The term culinary vegetable is redundant. The context defines its meaning. In our use of language we tend to define certain edible plant parts as spices, nuts, grains, etc. and not as vegetables. Fruits are those clearly defined plant parts that are generally used as deserts. Vegetables, in a culinary sense, are those plant parts we use primarily in main dishes and side dishes (but don't have another designation). The confusion generally comes out of the misunderstanding as exemplified by the question, "Is a tomato a fruit or vegetable?" We know that a tomato is both a fruit and vegetable. Botanically it's a fruit. But since vegetable is not a botanical term, then the context for the question becomes culinary in question; and clearly, a tomato is a vegetable in the culinary sense.Lashes1776 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I probably wouldn't make tomato ice cream, but people have done it, and from what I've heard, liked it. Never heard of it being commercially available, however. An eggplant is a botanical fruit, but it's even less like a culinary fruit than is the tomato. Are there any culinary fruits that are not botanical fruits?--RLent 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The only candidate I've ever seen proposed is rhubarb. Richard K. Carson 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully these issues are resolved by the current version of the article, and the issue is closed. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

It says in the article that vegetables aren't considered breakfast foods. I don't know what plant the author came from, but I enjoy mushroom omelettes, tomato omelletes, broccoli omelettes, etc. In countries other than north america, it's common to eat leftovers from supper for breakfast. Here in kazakhstan, I once had stuffed peppers for breakfast. And you know what? It really wasn't that bad! --ChadThomson 08:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

this is a good point!! i think even in western countries they eat tomato & cheese on toast for breakfast. siung99

It seems that this issue has been satisfactorily resolved. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Diagram

Vegetable is not a botanical term and so there is no contradiction in a plant part being a fruit botanically while still being considered a vegetable (see diagram).

I have a slight problem with the diagram relating to this. It compares 'botanical fruit' to 'culinary vegetables', but the diagram only has the labels 'fruit' and 'vegetable'. I think it really should say 'culinary fruit' and 'culinary vegetable' and explain that the intersection represents 'botanical fruit seen as a culinary vegetable' (which makes a nonsensical diagram in my opinion anyway).

-- Ishnaf 24.01.06

Is there such a thing as a "botanical vegetable"? If so, this should be mentioned in the article—the dictionaries I checked do not mention this. If not, the label "vegetable" is unambiguous.
As for "fruits", it's pretty clear that it refers to "botanical fruits", because the tomato is included. So labelling the circle on the right as "culinary fruit" would be wrong. PizzaMargherita 19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "botanical vegetable." Vegetable itself is not a botanical term, only a culinary one.--65.16.61.35 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the version I am reading there is no diagram, as referred to in this pp. Is this an oversite & can we delete that ref? Or better yet if someone has the diagram I'd like to see it.Lance 05:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture has been replaced, and hopefully it now reflects the text more accurately. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are all fruits vegetables?

User PRB recently claimed that all fruits are vegetables. He or she offered a link to Compact Oxford English Dictionary to support that claim, and removed a definition that is, I believe, more precise than the OED's, and in line with everyday's interpretation and use of the word.

Please notice the number of hits of in Google, and the vast number of associations named after the expression "fruits and vegetables" or its variations:

Also compare the sloppy OED's definition with the following:

I would be interested in a more specialistic reference, please come forward if you can offer one. If, botanically, "vegetable" includes fruits, we should make it clear in the article that this botanical definition differs from the interpretation given in everyday life.

If there is no objection, I'll revert to our previous definition. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 07:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of English, and my everyday usage of vegetable is the one that I outline. Both of your citations support my view. Britannica even states that the "common, narrow usage" of vegetable describes "the fresh edible portion of herbaceous plants (roots, stems, leaves, flowers, or fruit), either eaten fresh or prepared in some way." i.e. All fruits are vegetables.
The main problem I have with your definition is that it essentially boils down to "edible part of a plant that doesn't fall into one of the categories I have arbitrarily included on my list, unless it is one of the specific examples I have included on this other list." Why, for example, is "herb" there but "greens" not? Into which of these categories do Sorrel and Rocket fit? You exclude fruits, but then go on to explicitly include peas (which can be found on the fruit page). You state that vegetables are "typically considered to be savoury, not sweet", but that pumpkin is an exception to this generalisation. If that is the case, how did pumpkin get to be considered a vegetable under your definition? PRB 08:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You base your argument against the previous definition (which incidentally although I think is better than your definition it is not "my" definition) on the logical fallacy that "all (botanical) fruits are vegetables" follows from "some vegetables are (botanical) fruits". Similarly, you misrepresent my opinion when you say that I exclude (all) fruits from vegetables. I think that a good definition should make it clear that give or take the odd borderline case, such as pumpkin, culinary fruits (as opposed to botanical fruits) are not vegetables. On the other hand, botanical fruits _can_ be vegetables, case in point being tomatoes, as the venn diagram illustrates.
With >30M hits on Google, I remain to be convinced that the phrase "Fruits and vegetables" is redundant and is equivalent to "Vegetables".
I also haven't found a supermarket where bananas are found under the "vegetables" category.
You say that the previous definition is arbitrary. I think you'll find that few things in life can be defined in black-and-white. This one in particular, not being a scientific classification as far as I'm aware, is particularly subject to being arbitrary and disputable. But I believe most people would not dispute that grapefruits are not vegetables.
In fact, all definitions examined so far are wrong, because mushrooms are (arbitrarily) considered vegetables, and yet they escape such definitions.
Finally, your definition is in contradiction with your claim that "all fruits are vegetables", because oranges are the fruits of a non-herbaceous plant, and therefore, according to your own definition, not a vegetable.
PizzaMargherita 22:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've modified the definition, see how you like it. PizzaMargherita 07:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I point out that a pumpkin--being a squash--is, in point of fact, a fruit? I'd opine that it, therefore, serves as a poor example of a vegetable that can serve in a non-savory capacity. Personally, I think rhubarb would be a much better example, being that it's clearly not a fruit, and is most often used for pies and jams and the like. SchrödingersRoot | talk 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A pumpkin is indeed a "botanical fruit", but I believe that most people would call it a "vegetable" and not an "(informal) fruit". If this assumption is correct, then the pumpkin is an example of a "vegetable" that is sometimes used in sweet dishes. I hope that the current writing has clarified this point.
However, if many *lay* people out there do call the pumpkin a fruit rather than a vegetable, then the example may have to be fixed. In that case, please provide a pointer to a supporting source. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fungi

It was not so long ago (meaning during my lifetime) that fungi were considered plants, at which time there was no contradiction in calling them vegetables. The need to point this out as an exception is recent, but since vegetable is not a botanical term it doesn't matter as far as cooking is concerned. Richard K. Carson 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Fungi" are indeed "plant"s to botanists, but "plant" is a much broader term than "vegetable". The latter defintely excludes "fruits", "grains", and non-edible things, even though they are all parts of plants. The issue is whether it also excludes "mushrooms" or not. It seems that both sects have their believers. I hope that the current defintion makes it clear. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Troll Alert

I came upon this site because of the spam-list on Wikipedia. Anyhow, I open the page to find that the word "vegetable" has been changed to "HITLER" in the very first sentence. Obviousely, there is a snert/troll in here. If this happens again, we need to seriously consider putting some restriction on editing this page. --Ownlyanangel 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual, the vandalism was promptly reverted. All teh best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pulses v. Legumes

Is pulse really the most appropriate term for peas and the like? The entry on pulse specifies that "The term pulses, as used by the FAO, is reserved for crops harvested solely for the dry grain. This therefore excludes green beans and green peas," which are explicitly mentioned in the article as pulses. A more appropriate term would be legume. I will change this in a few days if there aren't any complaints Meteorswarm 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, thanks. PizzaMargherita 07:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

all right, I changed it Meteorswarm 06:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is Peanut considered a vegetable? Rebskii 17:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is another of the culinary distinctions. In most uses, a peanut, though botanically a legume, is used as a nut and not as a vegetable. I don't think that the peanut should be placed in this article, but that's just my opinion.Meteorswarm 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Viva fruit n' vegetable potral!

Portal

I am damn ashamed that we do not have a Fruit and Vegetable potral. Could someone perhaps more venerable than me start one? Thanks, Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I cannot see any advantage in portals, wikiprojects, navboxes, or any other kind of "meta-structure"; or in all their paraphernalia of templates and tags. Any functionality that those "features" might provide, to readers or editors, can be done much more easily, elegantly, usefully, and efficiently with plain articles connected by plain wikilinks.
The basic problem is that Wikipedia has over 3,000,000 articles and probably less than 10,000 regular editors. With those numbers, any attempt to organize the editor's work will be utterly pointless and inefective. IMHO, all those meta-things are just a huge waste of work for those who create and manage them, and huge annoyances for everyone else.
My advice is: forget portals and wikiprojects, and just keep working on whatever articles you feel like working on. It will be good for you, and good for Wikipedia. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Synonymous with a plant?

I would think the word "vegetable" has a relation to "vegetation" so may it be synonymous with a plant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.186.127 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

The current article hopefully makes it clear that "vegetable (noun)" is an informal term, while "vegetable (adjective)" and "vegetation" are scientific terms; the words have the same origin but the senses are quite different. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone Really Loves God

I'm not sure if this is the place to bring this up, but there are two somewhat badly phrased (and seemingly uneditable?) trolls about "the Lord God" and how awesome he is; since that has little to do with vegetables, I thought someone might like to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJSoulma (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

This item has been taken care of long ago. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Parsnips not in the list

pasnips are a vegetable too but they are not on this page [unsigned comment]

They are now. And check list of vegetables. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Potatoes aren't root vegetables

The article says 'Potatoes and other root vegetables', but potatoes are tubers, not root vegetables. The sentence should say 'Potatoes and root vegetables'.--Jcvamp 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of vegetable that excludes tubers? Does it also exclude pulses, and leaves?PRB 08:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the fact that potatoes are vegetables that I'm debating, it's the idea of them being root vegetables. A root vegetable is the root of a plant used as a vegetable. Potatoes grow around the roots as tubers and are therefore not root vegetables. Tubers, however, are still vegetables, I'm not debating that.--Jcvamp 11:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the above, what do people think of my edit? Note that the wikilinked article differentiates between tubers and non-tubers. WLU 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's better, though I think 'Potatoes and root vegetables' would be more inclusive.--Jcvamp 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out the wikilinked article, it disambiguates between root and non-root 'root vegetables'. OK, it sounds better in the article itself. Anyway, if the RV article makes the distinction for us, it saves space if we don't have to put it in the article itself. WLU 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the article on root vegetables says 'Root vegetables are underground plant parts used as vegetables. They are called root vegetables for lack of a better generic term, but include both true roots such as tuberous roots and taproots, as well as non-roots such as tubers, rhizomes, corms, and bulbs.' It classes tubers as root vegetables, but calls them 'non-roots' and defines root vegetables as underground plant parts used as vegetables, which isn't accurate. A root vegetable is specifically a root used as a vegetable.

Maybe it's different there in the US, but all the English dictionaries I've seen define it that way.--Jcvamp 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the root vegetable page needs a correction then, and if you've got a source then no-one can really argue. Since the classification of vegetable itself is essentially one of culture and convenience anyway, the only way I could see of applying a rule to the page would be to have a source which separates roots from non-roots. WLU 16:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got an example from an English dictionary. It's the third definition from AskOxford.com. I actually mentioned this on the talk page of root vegetables, but I got no response.--Jcvamp 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The earlier definition was from the Reader's Digest Word Power dictionary. I can have a look at other British dictionaries to provide more sources and double check.--Jcvamp 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if you think you need to check on talk pages before making changes, you need to read WP:BOLD :) If you've got the source, your edit pretty much stands unless someone challenges the source. Go ahead and try out the changes, see if anyone argues! WLU 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the root vegetables article contains a lot of information about things like tubers and other 'non-roots' and if I were to edit it, it would be a major edit that would change the entire theme of the article.--Jcvamp 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can always put in a section that summarizes your concerns (in a referenced fashion) with the page, or a 'tubers aren't really roots, but the stuff on this page still mostly applies.' If you're an expert or even a well-informed layman, you can re-write, then see what people say. If you aren't getting much feedback on the page, it's possible that the major contributors aren't online that often, or have stopped watching it. You may also try directly contacting the past contributors and asking for assistance. Though looking at it, it's a tiny bit of content and a long list, so there's not really much there. WLU 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a try. I've added a reference after the introductory sentence, and I've managed to alter it without removing any content; I simply reworded it. If there comes a point where it is disputed, I'll see what happens.

Thanks for the advice.--Jcvamp 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The article now has separate lines for "roots" and "tubers". Any readers who don't understand the difference need only click on the links. That should close the issue. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vegetable (and fruit) availability

I think it would be interesting to add some sort of list or calendar to show which vegetables are naturally available in which parts of the year. Nowadays we aren't used to vegetables being available only party of the year, because vegetables are dragged the world round to get them available for us in supermarkets all year long. Nevertheless, all vegetables have a natural period of availability, a fact which is still visible in vegetables prices, varying considerably between seasons.

However, information about this is hardly present, or scattered across the individual articles for each vegetable. I think it would be interesting to have one big list or calender. Your thoughts? Greetings, RagingR2 07:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it'd be a pain in the ass to assemble, not to mention the enormous number of vegetables that exist :) Sounds like it would take its own page too. That being said, if the info could be assembled and sourced it would be great. However, the 'parts of the year' bit is a touch iffy, given the inversion of seasons across the equator. Would it be based on which part of the calendar year they are in season (in which case, organize by 'natural habitat' or possibly hemisphere) or flat-out season, irrespective of calendar date? WLU 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Note also that the months will shift depending on latitude, altitude, cultivar, etc.. This information is better left to the articles on individual vegetables. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

There's the picture of the food cart and the venn diagram with the culinary versus botanical fruits, what are thoughts about the picture of the tray with the limes on it? I think the limes make it pretty much useless for the vegetables pages unless it's in the botanical fruits section, but how 'bout we discuss or look for a better one? Commons oddly enough isn't particularly helpful. Alternately, I could upload a picture of just veggies at some point in the future. WLU 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the picture of the tomatoes, green pepper and limes - all are botanically fruit, but the lime is not a culinary vegetable - and replaced it with a pic of veggies for sale in a farmer's market. I'll try to get around to taking a picture of just veggies at some point in the near future, possibly even veggies that are botanically fruit as well. The pic with the lime is inaccurate as far as I know - citrus fruit are fruit, I've never heard anyone call them vegetables. WLU 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to be a bitch, but the cart picture has fruit in it - bananas and lemons. Still, I don't care enough to change it back. WLU 22:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Shall we remove the right half of the farmer's market picture? Right now the picture tells me "picture of an asian woman walking down an aisle in a hangar, with some veggies on the left". Hopefully acceptable username (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And I agree that, pretty though it is, the picture of the "vegetable" cart is misleading because it contains some culinary fruits. I vote remove. Hopefully acceptable username (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Corn

Although it is a cereal grain, it is considered as a culinary vegetable. The Wikipedia article on corn, references this and directs to this article. Corn-on-the-cob is definitely thought of as a vegetable savoury with butter & salt. 98.16.32.152 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Sweetcorn is now listed as an example of vegetable in the category "seeds". This hopefully closes this item. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Very Evil Grin (VEG)

sorry for my clumsiness, I do not know how to start a post, just to edit one. I was looking for V.E.G as in very evil grin, as in slang. And all I could get was this veggie entry. Could someone help and redirect me to a entry that deals with such slang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.65.83 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Ok, I found this http://www.all-acronyms.com/VEG but nothing in Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.65.83 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

High importance?

i think this should move from high to top importance on the importance scale. i don't know how people change it, but since it is a food group, it should be of utmost importance in food and drink.if somebody can change this for me, that wold be cool Naturada137 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Naturada

Need a clear copy

hi can i have a long and clear copy of a vegetable and fruits introduction and objectives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.210.205 (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Info for Pesticide residual analysis.....

ISO may have not systematically developed the standards for pesticide residual analysis. However, there are literature regarding the issue

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16610931

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/bookhome/112634643

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/bookhome/112634645?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 --222.64.211.152 (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fruit or Vegetable

I was interested in the content of "Is it a fruit or a vegetable?" but started from the fruit side. You'll notice that the first sentence over there on the botanical usage reads, "Many true fruits, in a botanical sense, are treated as vegetables...". I was confused by what a "true fruit" was until I came here. I would expect a sentence like the following to also be present over there:

"Botanically speaking, fruits are fleshy reproductive organs of plants, the ripened ovaries containing one or many seeds. Thus, many botanical fruits are not edible at all, and some are actually extremely poisonous."

Should we add a link over there, or copy this section in full? Clearly by its title it applies to both equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.236.109 (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "vegetable" for braindead people

I heard that the term "to become a vegetable" can mean that someone became braindead but I haven't found anything about it in wikipedia or on other dictionaries. Is that term official? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.124.38 (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tone

This article is poorly written. It certainly gets the point across, but needs to be rewritten.Pisharov

Are mushrooms vegetables?

Of course they aren't!
Of course they are!
Googling around a bit, one finds many people who put mushrooms in a separate category, and many who coun them as vegetables. An exmple of the latter, from a Cooking Tips page on the Joy of Cooking Foods site:

Stuffing Vegetable Hors D'oeuvres:: Hollowed-out vegetables make terrific cases for any number of fillings. When stuffing round vegetables such as cherry tomatoes and mushroom caps, first cut a small slice off the bottom of each vegetable...

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

To be a vegetable, first it has to be a plant. Fungi aren't plants. "These organisms are classified as a kingdom, Fungi, that is separate from plants, animals and bacteria." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus (Of course, I'm ignoring cultural and culinary tradition when I say this.)"Pij" (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Corn, pear and strawberry

Original diagram.
File:Fruitnveg-3.png
New diagram, corn is apparently not a vegetable.

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

I'd say sweet corn is a culinary vegetable and a botanical fruit. I disagree with the classification of strawberries, figs and pineapples as not being botanical fruit. Even when operating in an extremely technical sense, accessory FRUITS (strawberries) and multiple FRUITS (pineapples) are still kinds of fruit, although some plant tissue that isn't fruit (in the narrowest possible sense of the term fruit) is associated with the fruit tissue. If fruit is being defined so narrowly as to exclude strawberries and pineapples, than pears (also pictured) aren't fruit either, as much of the flesh is derived from the hypanthium rather than the ovary.192.104.39.2 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • As for corn, the diagram (as of 2010-01-05) shows *dry* maize, which is a botanical fruit but neither a "vegetable" nor a "fruit" in the informl sense. As for pears, I confess my botanical ignorance, but the relevant Wikipedia articles say that it is a pome which in turn is a fruit, and I did not see any clear indication to the contrary. On the other hand the strawberry article has a reference-supported claim that acessory fruits are called (at least by some botanists) "false fruits" or "spurious fruits", i.e. "non-fruits", the "true fruits" being the achenes. (Someone recently edited strawberry to say that those claims are "inept" and that "false fruits are true fruits"; but since these counter-claims cited no sources and used disparaging language, I deleted them.) Ditto for pineapple.
    Besides, it seems bad scientific practice to define the word "fruit" in such a way that it fits the whole thing as well as a part of it. It should be either one of the other. If the botanical definition is such that the "fruit" of a Fragaria is the whole strawberry, then an isolated achene cannot be a fruit; and vice-versa.
    But, if the "scientific fruitness" of pears is indeed as disputed as that of strawberries, the diagram is incorrect and ought to be fixed. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Dry maize is not a botanical fruit, it's a seed. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Technically, a cereal grain is also a kind of fruit, a kind which is termed a caryopsis. However, the fruit wall is very thin, and is fused to the seed coat, so almost all of the edible grain is actually a seed. Therefore, cereal grains, such as corn, wheat and rice are better considered as edible seeds, although some references do list them as fruits." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit#Botanic_fruit_and_culinary_fruit "Pij" (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Vegetable Survey

I think a few others have commented on this in one form or another, but, why not add a graphic or short section discussing the most popular vegetables? We could include a table or graphic that has results from 2-4 surveys conducted in the past 5-10 years or even expand on this by showing the popularity of vegetables over the past few hundred years. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Should add a section about culinary arts for vegetable

There should be a great range of cooking styles with vegetables from different cultures of the world; it would be nice to see this section here for all to contribute. 123.202.103.212 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

proposing a new section on the culinary arts with vegetables

The diversity of the styles of cooking with vegetables should be fun to read and of good interests, especially when this can be contributed from around the world. Kwanchungleung (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mushrooms are plants!

The article says that mushrooms are not plants. This is clearly false - they are living things and not part of the animal kingdom, and are not protozoa, so they are plants. They may not be flowering plants, but they are still plants. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but mushrooms are not plants. And it's not true that any living things which aren't animal or protozoa are plants. Bacteria, for example, are neither animal nor protozoa. The Cavalier-Smith classification (2009) defines five Eukaryota kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Chromista and Protozoa. Mushrooms are Fungi, not Plantae. Similarly, in the ISOP classification (2005), mushroom and other fungus are classified in Opisthokonta, and not in Archaepladista with plants. — 189.177.135.82 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Fungi and bacteria were both considered plants until relatively recently, so mushrooms are the best example of how the word vegetable is a traditional, purely culinary term having nothing to do with biology, except when used as a synonym for any plant. Richard K. Carson (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a definition for sweet fruit?

The article says that sweet fruits are not vegetables. Is there a more specific definition of "sweet fruits"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.99.6 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

United States Supreme Court in 1893

This article implies that the descision of the United States Supreme Court in 1893 categorizes tomatoes as vegetables in all uses of the word but the Wikipedia article about tomatoes is more clear about what the descision says. So the part in this article about the United States Supreme Court in 1893 is misleading and probably should just be removed. The information is already in the Wikipedia article about tomatoes. Sam Tomato (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

sweet fruit

I recently edited the first sentence to read, "The noun vegetable usually means an edible plant or part of a plant other than seeds and fruit that is sweet before cooking. " and another editor edited this to read, "The noun vegetable usually means an edible plant or part of a plant other than sweet fruits or seeds." With the comment, "Vegetables aren't necessarily sweet before they are cooked."

A few comments on this. The sentence suggests that vegetables includes fruits that are not sweet before they are cooked and usually is not a synonym for, necessarily. The updated (later) version also makes it unclear if all fruits are sweet or if there is a category called, sweet fruit. If it is the latter, then I would expect sweet fruit to be wikilinked. Instead, there are two adjacent wikilinks (generally against wikipedia linking policy). I'm open to other wording that might reduce the confusion, but I don't like the current wording either.018 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult. A minor point would be that tomatoes can be quite sweet. Here's another suggestion: "The noun vegetable means an edible plant or part of a plant, but usually excludes seeds and most sweet fruit." I'm quite handicapped, because as a botanist I really can't say were rhubarb fits into this scheme (I'd just call it an edible petiole). Nadiatalent (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a lot better, I say we go with that. 018 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
To follow up on your point about tomatoes, they are the platypus of this taxonomy. A better example of sweet fruit might be mature bell peppers, which are solidly, "vegetable" by tradition and yet quite sweet and obviously a fruit as well. 018 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


This article fails to clearly state that "vegetable" has no botanical significance. This should be considered an error and a very significant oversight.76.6.91.182 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2012

in Nutrition section, please change GI to Gastrointestinal Opses0 (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dru of Id (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This article needs permanent semi-protection

The recent, temporary period of semi-protection was the only reprieve from vandalism since this article's creation. Surely I'm not the only one who recognizes that permanent semi-protection is appropriate here. Ringbang (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Restoring diagram for relationship between Fruit and Vegetable

A Venn diagram shows the overlap in the terminology of "vegetables" in a culinary sense and "fruits" in the botanical sense

This diagram has been removed with comments

I agree that there are too many images, but this is not a good reason to cut the one that looks different from most others. It is very relevant to the Terminology section, and it conveys that explanation at a glance. I don't see how a diagram turns WP into a kids' book. Any diagram can be expressed in words, and WP contains many other diagrams, for example this one.

I propose moving various market and market-like images in a gallery instead. 219.73.104.8 (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"hardly ever"?

"In everyday, grocery-store, culinary language, the words "fruit" and "vegetable" are mutually exclusive[citation needed]; plant products that are called fruit are hardly ever classified as vegetables, and vice-versa"

How about the avocado? And the pumpkin? 71.162.103.27 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Serving Size

How big is one cup? What is the height and weight of an average human? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.62 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In this vegetable article there is a picture with a link to Potala palace. There is an article about Potala Palace that it fails to link to. I can't seem to do the right thing to straighten it out; could some techy please fix it. and then delete this comment? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlakyFrank (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Lentower (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vegetable. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 07:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The page refers readers to a new location for the book. However, I removed the inline citation after updating it because on close inspection it did not seem to support the text:

Lampel, Keith A.; Al-Khaldi, Sufian; Cahill, Susan Mary, eds. (2012). Bad Bug Book: Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook (2nd ed.). Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved 2016-04-22.

Ringbang (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That isn't a pumpkin

someone fix the pumpkin help 131.217.51.159 (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a courgette, but I have replaced it with a pumpkin image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Definition

@Mikeybear: I don't think it's reader-friendly to start a definition of a broad concept, such as this one, with a comprehensive list of disclaimers and exclusions. Yes, there are sweet meals made from vegetables; there are savoury meals made from fruits; not every wine is alcoholic and made of grapes; and so on. But the basic definitions of these terms should not be expanded and diluted because there are exceptions. Exceptions and disclaimers should be listed in the article body first, and in the lead section only if they are of sufficient weight – I would argue that sweet meals made from vegetables are not so common to qualify. Likewise, some plants may be consumed whole (which ones, btw?) but it is only important that a "vegetable" typically refers just to a plant part.

The authoritative Vainio 2003 defines vegetables as "Edible plant parts ... generally consumed raw or cooked with a main dish, in a mixed dish, as an appetizer or a salad". I could live with a modifier such as "generally", but I don't think we should overload the first sentence. No such user (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I find it odd that vegetables are defined in terms of human meals. Horses eat carrots. Humans snack on vegetables between meals. Not all vegetables are eaten in savoury meals. I'm sure a vegetable can be defined without needing to constrain them to savoury human meals. As for "vegetables" that aren't *part* of a plant, I had mushrooms in mind. I am aware they are an "exception" vegetable that are not plant matter as such, but they are considered a vegetable in terms of human food. Then there are tubers like potatoes. I think it is incorrect to say vegetables are only *part* of a plant. Mikey Bear (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
But vegetables are defined in terms of human meals. Horses eat apples and grass, too, but neither is a "vegetable". We could repeat the definition from Vainio, which is more encompassing than just "savoury meal", but that's the bottom line – vegetables are savoury rather than sweet plant foodstuff. Even if we accept that mushrooms are vegetables, a mushroom is just a part of the fungus, which is the whole organism. No such user (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Defining a vegetable is quite hard because so many different parts of so many plants are eaten by humans. A tomato is a botanic fruit but usually eaten as a vegetable. Sweet corn is usually considered to be a vegetable but maize/corn used for animal feed or industrial purposes is not. I was largely responsible for the present definition in the article and I largely agree with the views expressed by No such user. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Algae and mushrooms?

What about algae and mushrooms? Biologically they are no plants, but they are technically used the same way as vegetables. Should they be considered vegetables? Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

From a culinary point of view, both mushrooms and algae are vegetables. Any cook regards them as such.
See http://findlayfoods.com/dictionary-of-general-cooking-terms#V.%20Cooking%20Terms There are several types of vegetarians. Most will eat vegetables, fruits, grains, beans and tofu. Lacto-ovo vegetarians will eat dairy products and eggs. Lacto vegetarians will also eat dairy products. Note that there's no mention of mushrooms, but even the strictest vegan will eat mushrooms, and delicious mushroom recipes are an important part of the menu in every vegetarian eatery I've ever attended.
This is a significant change. Category:Edible fungi should for example be a subcategory of Category:Vegetables.
And Volvariella volvacea should be in Category:Asian vegetables. Or better, simply add Category:Chinese edible mushrooms to Category:Asian vegetables as a subcategory. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Mushrooms and algae

Mushrooms and algae are not plants. They are considered vegetables, not plants. "Vegetables" is a culinary term; "plants" is a botanical term. I believe that the article can be made more clear by my correction, and that this revert is completely asinine. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually algae, in the most precise and current scientific sense, are plants. Kelp and seaweed, to which you refer in your edit, are most definitely plants. It's true that so-called "bluegreen algae" are cyanobacteria rather than plants, but I'm not sure they're ordinarily considered "vegetables".
I agree that mushrooms are not plants, in current scientific taxonomy, but are often considered vegetables, and I'm not opposed to amending the text to include them. --Trovatore (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Plant begins:
Plants are mainly multicellular, predominantly photosynthetic eukaryotes of the kingdom Plantae.
The term is today generally limited to the green plants, which form an unranked clade Viridiplantae. This includes the flowering plants, conifers and other gymnosperms, ferns, clubmosses, hornworts, liverworts, mosses and the green algae, and excludes the red and brown algae.
Brown algae include kelp. For whatever it's worth. —Tamfang (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

The "Vegetable shop in India" picture (Vegetable Shop in Meppadi.jpg) mostly shows fruit. Can someone find a better picture that actually fits the description? $ekraan (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Vegetable. 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) 19:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request "veg" and "veggie"

Change hat note to "veg" and "veggie" redirect. 76.102.7.183 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you and happy editing! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ellipse(300,300,300); — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:4485:9E00:95ED:2B7:1E62:92C4 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

Please take out "as part of a meal" in the first sentence. If someone eats a carrot as a snack, not as part of a meal, it is still a vegetable. 69.80.255.241 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019

{{subst:trim

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. QueerFilmNerdtalk 23:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Definition

The very definition at the top of this page is highly problematic. Why say "parts that are consumed or edible"?? Everything in a plant, consumed or not, edible or not, belongs in the vegetable realm -- it's not animal or mineral or anything else! In the same vein, a question I've seen online (not necessarily on this page) makes absolutely no sense: "is this a fruit or a vegetable?". I mean, have you ever seen a fruit that doesn't come from a plant? There's no such thing as "an animal or mineral fruit". All fruits are vegetables! You guys should work better on that whole definition. It makes no sense. -- 2804:14C:5B84:82B3:98C3:E572:8F86:AFE8 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Please add the following to the See also section:

Alternatively, consider a brief mention in the article (where appropriate). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think that would be appropriate for the see also section. However, it would probably merit mention in the article text. You would need to propose specific text and a location in the article in order to use the {{edit semi-protected}} request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, at the moment this was declined I added it to the see also section, because it is an appropriate link as it is not mentioned elsewher, and is related to the definition of what a vegetable is. © Tbhotch™ 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

I have a request to edit this article because it contains false information. 2603:6011:F901:9E0E:F119:F1F6:2E59:1510 (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"Fruit vegetable" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fruit vegetable and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Fruit vegetable until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Shabji" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shabji and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Shabji until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Salad vegetables" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Salad vegetables and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Salad vegetables until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Yellow-orange vegetables" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yellow-orange vegetables and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Yellow-orange vegetables until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vegetable/Archive_1&oldid=1218575216"