Talk:Vegetable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Vegetable 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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
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 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Vegetable: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Better use of inline citation
  • Fully explain growth (from seed to vegetable)
  • Explain history in various human cultures
  • Explain the characteristics of a vegetable more definetly, discuss subgroups and differences.

Contents

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!
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 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Α

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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).


pasnips are a vegetable too but they are not on this page

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] What About The Dislikeability

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

[edit] 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)