Talk:Grape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Grape 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Wine WikiProject
Wine Portal
Grape is part of WikiProject Wine, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of wines, grapes, wine producers and wine growing regions. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page where you can join the project and find other ways of helping.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale within WikiProject Wine.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Wine open tasks
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Grape: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Mention of the growing season
    • Pesticide use (grapes are one of the most notorious crops for pesticide residues)
    • Nutritional qualities
    • Mention where grapes originally came from (evolutionary history) if known
    • Explain harvest times and prosidures

Contents

[edit] Health "Benefits" of red wine

Please DO NOT put a recommendation for a glass of red wine a day. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 That explains why. In short, there is no research that definitevely proves a corrolation between a healthy heart and red wine consumption, in fact it is the opposite. The anti-oxidants that exist in red wine are just as prevalent in grape juice; a MUCH healthier alternative. --74.78.50.203 (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Production Map Discussion

I am moving this discussion from Image talk:2005grape.PNG, since it seems more relevant to the article than the image. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that this is going to need to be edited to reflect California's production of Grapes as well. It is famous for producing a large amount specifically for wine, and I'm surprised that this map doesn't reflect that.

St. Fenix 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

California will be included in the map when it declares independence and becomes a republic.Anwar 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe there might be confusion because all the "bubbles" for the United States are clustered on the East Coast. This makes it appear that the map depicts grape production in specific regions. From your response can we assume the map depicts grape production only by nation, and not by specific location? Perhaps the bubbles could be moved to the center of each nation. Just a suggestion. --Bridgecross (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Possibly a color coordinated map where all nations producing less than 10 percent are simply gray would be better. I will remove this image (due to the fact it can be very misleading) from the articles that have it linked in one month if this is not corrected.Taboo Tongue (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad you agree; following up. It has been more than a few months. Issue; poorly constructed map give appearance of regional data when in fact it only contains national data. I am removing from article. --Bridgecross (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your vandalism. Replace only if a suitable alternative meeting your specifications is found. Anwar (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I kindly take issue with your characterization of my edit as "vandalism." 1) There was a reasonable discussion here about the edit. I did not disfigure the article, and there was no malicious intent. 2) If there is a graphic which does not do the job properly, it is better to have no graphic at all. The article works just fine without a map, and it works even better without a misleading map. Are you the original creator, and if so, can YOU fix the map so that it is not misleading? If you believe the map is just fine the way it is, please explain. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nutritional Value Conflict

There is a conflict about the nutritional value for the amount of Manganese in Grapes. Two references indicate the amount of Mn is 0.071 mg per 100 grams of grapes. One is the USDA and another is [1]]. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) is a credible resource and an authority on this subject.
I also moved out the original conflict references below from the edit box(Further discussion can be continued here if necessary) AlexGWU wrote: according to the USDA 0.071 mg is the Mn content Paul144 wrote:incorrect, the value is 0.718 mg which is approx. 36% of the DRI; also see http://whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrientprofile&dbid=55 which reports the same Mn level -- calculate to 100 g from 92 g sample shown--> —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGWU (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the row of data from the USDA for raw American grapes, 100 g:
Manganese, Mn | mg | 0.718 | 4 | 0.103 where 0.718 mg = 718 ug. The DRI for Mn is 2 mg so that Mn content = 35.9% DRI. The Mn data agree with the amount per 100 g (calculated) reported by the World's Healthiest Foods site, a different analysis, but an identical % DRI. --Paul144 (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ball Lightning?

According to the wikipedia article on ball lightning, there is no mention of artificially reproducing the phenomenon in a consumer-grade microwave, with grapes or otherwise. This information seems highly questionable and should perhaps be removed... but if the information on this page is actually correct, the wikipedia article on ball ligntning itself should probably be extended.

Yeah, is there a citation for this? I'm eating some grapes right now, and I'm tempted to try this out...
Yishan 07:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
googling turns up references to creating sparks from microwaved grapes, and a couple of pages refer to it as "ball lightning," but it doesn't seem like there's an authoritative source that refers to it as such. Jeremy Thornhill 19:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is any real justification for adding this to grapes. If there were some well-documented scientific research, then I could see the point, but to claim that ball lightning can be made in a microwave with grapes? That's stretching reality a little too far. Besides, technically, all a microwave really does is to aggrevate water molecules, and there would never be enough energy to produce electricity (at least nowhere near that magnitude).
I've done this many times, it does not only spark, but will creat floating balls of plasma that go above the grape, I have been also to capture it in the top of a tall glass, it changes color, like the light bulb. I've also been ablt to do so with cheery tomatoes.
Utube have a video of a grape producing light/energy in a microwave - don't know if it is lightning though
There are numerous youtube videos depicting this grape plasma phenomenon. A simple search will show all you need to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.10.243 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An incorrect edit, but...

The last edit removes the word berries, and as an edit summary states "Grapes aren't berries." This is incorrect, grapes ARE berries, at least botanically speaking. However, the usage in this case was redundant and the article actually reads better without it, so I hate to put it back. On the other hand, I don't really like leaving an incorrect statement in the Edit History. What's Wikipedia protocol on this sort of thing?Elakazal 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grape skins

I came here hoping to find information about any nutrients in grape skins. Anyone know anything? Specifically about eating them, not drinking it indirectly from red wines.

Im allergic to grape skins so I have a special machine that peels the skins off for me. Does that take out most of the nutrients?

As with most fruit (and vegetables), many of the vitamins and minerals (and especially fiber) that can be found in these substances reside in the skins/peels. There have been claims that the potato skin is far more nutritious for you than the starchy innard. Be that as it may, grapes do have a lot of bulk and substance inside that skin. Plus, it is so darn thin, I doubt you would really be removing enough of the good stuff to really make much difference. Ask any doctor, though, and chances are they would argue against juicing over simply eating the fruit whole. But, I wouldn't sweat the grape peels, though. (Allergy to grape skins? Strange. Sorry about that. Could that maybe be more related to the chemicals that so many commercial farmers use these days, or is it really a substance in the skin?)

I suppose the article could do with expanding a little here. The skins contain all of the tannin in the grape and give most of the colour to the juice / wine. They contain polyphenols, antioxidants and basically most of the (claimed) health benefits provided by grapes come from the skins, rather than the pulp. mikaultalk 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures overlap

The pictures overlap the list of grape species in my browser (Mozilla 1.3B for Mac OS 10.2) Tuf-Kat

Mine, too, in IE 6.0 for Windows. -- [[User:Zoe|
Changed it so the table is only two pictures wide instead of three. Does that work for you? Thanks. Wnissen 23:26 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

hi people im doin a project on grapes can u help me??????

[edit] Production reference

Although I can imagine believing that "grapes constitute approximately 50% of all fruit grown in the world", it remains a very surprising fact, and deserves a reference. I was unable to find one (in about two minutes of half-hearted googling). Pekinensis 22:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the claim. — Pekinensis 16:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/FoodAvailQueriable.aspx#midForm, in 2003 Americans consumed 18.4 lbs of grapes (per capita), out of a total 274.9 lbs of fruit (104.9 lbs citrus + 170.0 lbs non-citrus). So in rough numbers, grapes made up about 6.7% of the total amount of fruit consumed (in the US; per capita; measured by weight; in 2003). Now the US isn't a perfect gauge for world fruit consumption, but it certainly casts doubt on that stat! — RPT

You might what to put the claim back in. Grape are indeed probably the largest fruit crop grown in the world. The vast majority of grapes are grown for wine production and included in this is that for distillation and the production of gross ethanol. As you will note only a small proportion of grapes are used as fresh fruit. It is estimated that in 2004 alone, approximately 76.5 million hectalitres of wine was produced. adam

The FAO places grapes second in production...last year 66 million metric tons of grapes were produced. Compare that to 71 million for banana (and I believe this refers only to the 15-20% of bananas that are traded commercially, the rest being grown as a subsistence crop). So grape is big, but its not the biggest and it's not half.Elakazal 01:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Grapes are juicy, smooth berries that grow on a woody vine. They are used to make red and white wine. They grow in clusters of 6 to 300 berries, can be black purple red and white. luz

The table showing area dedicated to wine-making is not correct. Turkey is listed 4th, but while they may be the 4th largest producer of grapes, they do not use much of that for wine (as noted here). I couldn't find a reference for where those numbers come from either... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.163.209 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wild grapes

I added a pic of what I believe are wild red grapes, altho I am no expert. A more knowledgeable person might take a close look. --Tysto 00:51, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

The leaves look wrong and the cluster doesn't appear dense enough. Look under Vitis riparia for an example of the proper leaves. Dermar130 1:02, 2005 October 3

I removed the image, theese are perhaps elderberries but pretty sure not grapes -- Schusch 21:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] grape must?

what is "grape must"?

See must.

[edit] Aussie slang

Should we add something about how grapes are australian slang for a woman with a big vagina?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say... no. Interesting factoid, though.

Hmmm never heard that one before and im from australia WesternAustralia 11:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Claims for Grape Seed Extract

Are there any references for all these medical claims for grape seeds? Can we trim these to things that have been shown to be true and are evidence based? I suspect that grape seeds are good, or at least not bad for people. But, for example, the citation of "reducing cellulite" seems especially suspect since "cellulite" is a fashion term introduced by Vogue Magazine in the US that means "cottage cheese looking" subcutaneous fat. These sound like the kinds of claims made by dietary supplement makers that their supplements "support" the body in some specific way but do not have to be evaluated in any rigorous way.

Perhaps some of these claims have been evaluated, if so can we leave those, put proper citations in and get rid of the claims that have not been proven? It seems like a large list of wonder cures proven by "recent studies." Perhaps these "recent studies" can be cited so people can evaluate their claims for themselves.

Sbfisher 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resveratrol

There appears to almost be an additional article on resveratrol tacked onto the end of this article. Elakazal

I've chopped that down a bit, since it was mostly redundant with resveratrol. -- Beland 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox?!

As grapes are not a taxon, I propose removal of the taxobox. --Eleassar my talk 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but I would stipulate that the Vitis article be started (more than a redirect) per the flora naming convention. WP:PLANTS prefers that cultivated or agriculturally important species have two articles--one to describe the cultivation, use as a food or crop, and the other to describe species, taxonomy, botanical history, etc. Until that article is created, though, I would keep the taxobox as the article does talk a bit about the botanical aspect, especially with the section on species. --Rkitko (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The Vitis article exists and it's good enough. The genus is mentioned in the present article, and grapes are mentioned in the Vitis article. I have removed the taxobox, and added a link to the genus article where appropriate. Dysmorodrepanis 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harmful to Dogs?

Should we mention that grapes are harmful to some animals, namely dogs? Source --Garfunkle20 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now there is just something in the see also section that links to Grape and raisin toxicity in dogs. It can also be put in the article, to give it more visibility, if you want. --Joelmills 23:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of grape cultivation

The article lacks any mention, let alone a section, on the grape's position —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meco (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Grape v blackcurrant

Not sure whether this is worth mentioning, but it's in the blackcurrant article, so... there's a strong Transatlantic divide when it comes to these flavours in sweet foods. The blackcurrant and Ribena articles seem to indicate that there are two reasons for this:

1) Blackcurrant cultivation was banned in the US for many years, and remains so in some states, because of a disease that affects timber. Hence, although the fruit was fairly popular in the US up until about 1900, it's far rarer now.

2) In the UK, blackcurrants were among the few easily-obtainable fruits during WW2, and the government distributed blackcurrant syrup/cordial to the nation's children to maintain Vitamin C intake. Hence the British penchant for blackcurrant flavour.

The divide remains pretty well-defined: for example, purple Skittles or Starburst sweets are blackcurrant-flavour in the UK; grape flavour would seem very odd to us. Equally, blackcurrant jam/jelly is one of the most popular flavours, whereas the grape equivalent screams "American food" to us. And so on. 86.132.137.36 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Interesting, but I don't see the link with the grape article, other than where the blackcurrant article uses "unlike" and "instead." Ergo, in my opinion, a matter not for mentioning in the grape article.
Iterator12n Talk 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


people please!!!! I'm a lazy botany student and I'm trying to do this projecto on grapes so stop confusing me!!!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.227.222.219 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-16T15:32:26.

[edit] Seedlessness POV

The Statement: "Seedlessness is a highly desirable subjective quality in table grape selection" and associated language is non-neuteral and reflects a subjective opinion; it has no buisiness being in an encyclopedia article. It should be promptly removed and/or replaced with more neutral factual language. Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. WaynaQhapaq 00:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The important thing here is "in table grape SELECTION". The statement refers to the process of grape breeding and is not a statement of opinion on the qualities of grapes. Any one who has worked breeding table grapes would agree that seedlessness is virtually always among the highest priorities. This has not always been the case in Europe, where many seeded grapes remain popular, but even there table grape breeding programs emphasize seedlessness, and I think it fairly unlikely that many seeded varieties will be released by European programs in the future. In the U.S., no commercially successful seeded varieties have been released in decades. Elakazal 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veraison merge?

Support the merge (though I happened just across it and didn't propose it). The "Veraison" text would fit nicely in the "Description" section, adding a bit of flavor too. Dysmorodrepanis 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dried vine fruit merge

Came across this previously orphan article, which is little more than a definition. I could see that it could be used as the basis for the consolidation of raisin, sultana etc and as such would make quite a good article - but otherwise should just be merged in here. What do people reckon? I know that it's very British to even split things up into sultanas etc in the first place, but since we have that division, it might make sense to look at the subject as a whole. FlagSteward 11:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at most of the relevant articles, I've come to the conclusion that words in this area can mean so many different things to different people, that a more WP:CSB approach is needed, and that most of the dried grapes should end up at dried vine fruit. Possibly the only exception might be raisin - but in some ways that's the most ambiguous, perhaps that article should be split between dried vine fruit and California raisin. 12:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge arrow
 It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Dried vine fruit. (Discuss)