Talk:Fruit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Fruit is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Fruit was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 23, 2006
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Criticisms of Fruit

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

[edit] Carrots as Fruit

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

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

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

[edit] Types

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

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

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

Thank you - Marshman

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

you make me laugh

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

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

[edit] Carrots, lentils, and nuts, oh my!

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

It should be evident to all that a carrot is a root and not a fruit, and the purpose of listing it otherwise is political — one of the clearest examples available that politicians can and do make decisions without any rational or scientific basis and that Europeans are not superior to anyone else on the planet. But also be clear that lentils and nuts are in fact fruits by all but a culinary definition which seems to require sugar - Marshman 04:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, EU legislation requires preserves to declare the proportion of "fruit". Since there is a Portuguese carrot jam, carrots are defined as a "fruit" for this purpose. I don't believe that the EU classify carrots as fruits in any other circumstances Bluap 12:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I stand by my original tirade. Unless you are saying that it is "carrot jam" that is a "fruit" and not carrots. In which case, I find that about as strange; or do you really mean it is carrot jam that is considered a "processed fruit"? ..which does make some sense. - Marshman 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
It's just a pointless bit of EU beaurocracy. Jams have to list the proportion of "fruit", and by "fruit" they mean "genuine fruit + carrots". It's supposedly easier to include carrots in the buaurocratic definition of "fruit", than it is to include an exception to the rules for carrot jam. Either way, a carrot is patently not a botanic fruit.
Thanks for clearing that up. The way you put it does make sense. - Marshman 17:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Stupid Fruit Facts

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

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

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

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

Boy, you are not going to last long around here with that attitude. The "fact" is not mine. I did not add it to the text, and only previously corrected it after suggestion from others with knowledge that the original text was not exactly correct. I therefore now assume it has been reviewed and corrected (i.e., is correct as stated), but I have no real knowledge of that fact. Your problem is an inability to separate POV from fact. If you think it is Eurobashing, that is in your mind. If the statement were untrue, I could support that contention, but apparently you are not at all interested in the truth, only making sure no one is critical of anything your mind presently holds. That is POV and it is not permitted at Wikipedia. I'm sorry your personality does not permit you to participate in this wonderful project. Sorry it did not work out for you; but consider that you can always sneak back in as a real person once you grow up. - Marshman 04:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
First, don't call me Boy. If I'm male, which you don't know, it's demeaning (and insulting (of course that doesnt' seem to bother you, apparently you like demeaning others as you insist on poking fun at the Portuguese) and if I'm female it even worse. If you go around calling anyone you disagree with "Boy" someone is going to rearrange major parts of your anatomy some day. Of course, you only do it from your keyboard, where you're safe from real retribution, isn't that right, Marsh? And, it's not attitude. It's an objection to foolishness. This is a dumb fact that has no relevance to what a fruit is. Giving it prominence diminishes and trivializes what you say is a wonderful project. Might as well add something about slot machines being called fruit machines in the UK or Fruit of the Loom underwear. It's totally irrelevant to a definition of fruit and certainly does not belong in the introductory paragraph.
Sorry, I forgot you are not American. "Boy" is used at the start of a sentence in the same sense as "Whew" or "Wow" or similar. However, having said that, I consider your attitude abusive and will no longer duscuss the matter with you. It is not my "fact" and it is really no longer even an issue. The problem has become your vandalizing pages at Wikipedia and taking an abusive and threatening stance when you can not have your way. You need to read the rules that govern behavior around here (or in society in general) before continuing as a contributor - Marshman
Oh, that's right. I missed the rule that says it's ok to poke fun at others just so you can show off your command of meaningless trivia. I also missed the rule that says it's ok to use patently racist forms of address because it's the AMERICAN thing to do Let's unfurl the stars and stripes, and raise a hearty red white and blue salute to all those good-ol'boy-racist epithets that make america great. What's wrong with you anyway? Doesn't it embarass you to be such a prig and such an obvious racist? Or is that, too, another AMERICAN value dear to your heart?
To the anonymous editor who is rabidly protective of the EU and who sees Eurobashing American conspiracies in every corner, let me reassure you that the term "boy", as used by Marshman, is not a term of address at all (like "Sir" or "Mister") but rather an interjection (like "golly" or "wow"). It thus could not be pereceived as racist by anyone fluent in the English language, or familiar with American English. We forgive you for your confusion. Regards, Babajobu 11:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
An interesting aspect of the anonymous contributor is that he/she is living in central California and using the UC Davis computer system. I thought at first I had simply touched the nerve of a poor English speaker. But I do not think that is the case. I think it is simply a person who would rather "fight" than do anything else. - Marshman 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
UC Davis is the premier agricultural school in California and is world recognized for their agricultural research. You may well have stepped on the toes of a Professor in the School of Agriculture or Botany or such. Or perhaps a lowly grad student :P Judging on the manner of speech I would put my money on the former. -JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.50 (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

[edit] Seedless Fruits

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

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

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

[edit] Carrot jam

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

Well, my Googling of carrot jam turns up a couple Iranian companies that make it, a Danish recipe, and a comment about how it was a Victorian-era tea-time spread. I don't know Portuguese, but Babelfish spits out "atolamento da cenoura", and that only gets 32 results. Rewrote it (and fixed the sentence structure to match the previous one). Someone else can change it if they have substantial reason to believe that it has a strong Portuguese connection. FireWorks 19:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Googling for "Carrot Jam" Portugal gives nearly 100 hits, including some tourist sites, and some message boards talking about the EU "fruit" regulation. Nothing definitive, though. Bluap 16:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why merge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Expert opinion and specialistic reference needed at Talk:Vegetable

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

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

[edit] Farming

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

[edit] Husks

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

[edit] Seed dissemination?

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

[edit] Fruit vs. vegetable

I've deleted this paragraph:

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

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


Image:DFRTurnipTrophy.jpg
Viva fruit n' vegetable potral!

[edit] 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 Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 08:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vegetables "Section"

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

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

[edit] References

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

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

[edit] GA concern: Prose

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

[edit] GA on hold

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

1. Well written? Fail
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Fail
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

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

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

[edit] GA failed

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

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

[edit] Fruit

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

[edit] Tutti Frutti

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

[edit] Missing fruit

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

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

[edit] Factual error in production section

[edit] Fruit Production Table

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

[edit] Development of Fruit After Pollination

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

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