Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Beet -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

	Beet 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. 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. Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Food and drink task list: This list is transcluded from the to do list page, to edit it click here. Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Food, Bread, Beef, Curry, Drink, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yoghurt, Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom) Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: , Italian cuisine, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Coffee, Milk, Pasta, French cuisine Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Burger King Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, click here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food Review articles currently up for GA status: Burger King legal issues, Chocolate

Complementary and Alternative Medicine portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Beet is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents 1 Domain 2 Units 3 Colour 4 Nutrition 5 suggestion/taste 6 references 7 Merge? 8 Root vegetable 9 Merge with mangelwurzel? 10 Human vomit remark? 11 Categorization 12 Subspecies 13 External Links 14 Dubious 15 Cultural References 16 the raddish 17 "open-pollinated" 18 Beta vulgaris

Domain

Nice pictures, I must say. Very lovely baby beets, for sure! This page is redirected from beetroot, even though it is a seperate variety (not sure of the terminology) like sugarbeet. Shouldn't beetroot be a seperate article? Peter Isotalo 19:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's become more braod than the beetroot only article it was before, but the American usage seems to be beet, while UK is beetroot. GraemeLeggett 15:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are carrots referred to as carrotroot?71.79.29.143 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Units

From the article: "An average sized cup (250 ml) of sliced beets..." Including the metric equivalent was a nice thought, but in most metric-using countries solid ingredients are measured by weight, not volume. Does anyone happen to have a cup of sliced beets to hand, and if so, could they change that to give the equivalent in grams rather than millilitres?

Done --Renice 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Colour

I added the bit on colour but was unsure if the English "colour" rather than american "color" spelling was appropriate Andham2000 15:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's originally a European native plant, so it should be at international spelling - MPF 12:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

European native plant has nothing to do with it. If it is not dealing with something connected to a particular variant of the English language, original usage should prevail. Your argument is like saying we should never use maize but always call it corn, using American English for an American native plant. Gene Nygaard 14:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The spelling should be consistent - the change of "colorant" to "colourant" was more in keeping with consistency and minimal changes than changing all instances of "colour" to "color". GraemeLeggett 14:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The color spelling was used here for months before the colour spelling—and for more months after the inconsistent with existing spellings "colour" was added by Andham2000. Gene Nygaard 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the main reason I checked up and went to original spelling was because of the edit summary statement by User:Xyster, to match "international spelling". That simply is contrary to the Wikipedia rules. As you point out, consistency within an article is an admirable goal; if Xyster had made his edit on that basis, it is unlikely I would even have checked what the original spelling was. Gene Nygaard 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my edit - it actually was for consistency with the spelling of 'colour' in the rest of the article; I clouded matters with my reference to 'International English' quoted from MPF's comment above. Xyster 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I made what I hope was a minor change to the (very useful) color section: I changed the word vaccuoles to a link and removed the word "(holes)", which was an inaccurate characterization of vacuoles included in the source document. Vacuoles in cells are not really holes, they are more like membrane bound sacks within the cell. Blindrhino 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nutrition

Its not clear if the nutritional info given is for raw, cooked, pickled or whatever. In the interests of accuracy should this be checked? 20.133.0.14 28 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

• Yes, it should; such nutritional labels (U.S.-style) are not normally found on fresh veggies, so I suspect this is from canned beets. But I'm not in the U.S. so I can't run out and check this myself. Sharkford 14:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

suggestion/taste

I have never eaten a beet, or even seen a beet. Once I layed down beats. But in any case, I approached the article desiring to understand the experience of beet eating...how does it taste? What does the taste resemble?

There is nothing on the avalibility of the beet during the year, when is it best grown?

In Portland, Oregon, people generally buy the roots of beets that have been minced and canned (in metal cans). It is unusual to find bottled beets unless you do them yourself, and are the "do it yourself" - When you buy them from the grocery store and open them up, they are almost always going to be in the shape of 1/4 inch cubes, all a deep scarlet red color. I have, however, seen some beets that crinkle cut, as if they were processed like pickles are.

Beets out of the can are not crisp. They do not crunch like crisp pickles do. They are a little on the soggy side because they are canned in their own broth. I imagine the reason they are not crisp is because they are heated prior to canning or bottling.

So far as I can tell, beets have a fruity flavor, with almost no citric or ascorbic acid. They taste like they are a little bit on the pungent side because manufacturers soak them with cloves or allspice before canning. I was recently reading a book about prisoners of war in Germany, and one of the soups that prisoners got to eat (i.e., sip) was beet soup - a kind of sweetish soup made of chopped, boiled beets and cabbage. 198.177.27.26 07:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

references

The people of Shelbyville drink turnip juice, not beetroot juice.

Merge?

I think the Beta stub should remain separate since it provides links to other species (as yet unpopulated, but still...). It's been 10 days since the notice was placed and there was no discussion, so I'm removing the notice. --Renice 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. But, beta article is like a stub, and beet is like a main article.--Ricardo Carneiro Pires 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm vascillating on this -- but, the one statement in the beta article that trips me up is "Almost all have the common name of 'beet'." If 'beet' were a common name for all beta species, there'd be no problem... Or, could merge beet into beta and make it the main article... ?? What are beta species that aren't commonly called beets? Chard (which is covered in the beet article)? Others? --Renice 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Beet follows standard wiki naming so it belongs as the main article compare with rose/rosa. GraemeLeggett 11:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're arguing that beta should be merged into this article? (There's no Rosa article, only the rose article.) --Renice 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Just that renaming beet is not a sensible idea.GraemeLeggett 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I looked the beet definition in The Free Dictionary: Beet, and the most adequate name of this article is common beet. Because beet is the synonymy name of genus Beta.--Ricardo Carneiro Pires 11:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Root vegetable

Although several parts of the beet plant are used for food, I think it would be good to have a specific mention of the root as a root vegetable, with a link to the article on root vegetables. The article on root vegetables does list beets, under True root, Taproot. 140.147.160.78 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Merge with mangelwurzel?

Beetroot and mangelwurzel are one and the same thing (Beta vulgaris). So why do we need two separate articles?? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Human vomit remark?

How would one go about tracking down who put a specific edit into an article without having to laboriously compare every single edit with its previous edit? I ask because someone put a remark about human vomit within the article, and I'm quite sure it's vandalism, or someone trying to push an agenda. (could be both though), although I don't know what to put in place of it or simply remove it. Brian Ryans 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply remove and ignore--there are vandals who put obvious prank comments like this in Wikipedia all of the time, usually they are just children making the modern equivalent of prank phones calls, wasting your time discussing it, repeating it in the edit history and the like are not necessary. However, these edits were simply the four done before you removed the information. Usually stuff like this doesn't sit in an article for long, so just looking at what anonymous (IP address, often red-linked instead of blue) did the last edit is sufficient. Thanks for the reverts. KP Botany 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

The data in the taxobox and the categorization are in dispute currently. According to the taxobox, beet belongs to the family Chenopodiaceae, but the article is in the category Amarantaceae. As far as I know, only APG treats Chenopodiaceae as a subfamily of Amarantaceae (and it should not be called Chenopodiaceae then but Chenopodioidae).

To provide we're not giving undue weight to APG, I propose recategorization of the article to the category Chenopodiaceae. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, unless there is some well-sourced compelling reason for doing otherwise, consistency within the article and the taxobox, tied to a source, with a single mention within the text of the APG I/II (whichever) classification. KP Botany 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

seems like someone could go through the whole genus and either put them into amarantacea or chenopodiacea, for example spinach and chard note amaranteacea as the family

trueblood 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Subspecies

While attempting to add material to this article from Zohary & Hopf's Domestication of plants in the Old World (third ed.), I found that they list two wild subspecies of B. vulgaris that are not mentioned in this article:

• B. vulgaris macrocarpa (Guss.) Thell., "native to the warmer, more arid parts in the Mediterranean basin"
• B. vulgaris adanensis (Pamukç.) Ford-Lloyds & Williams, "which thrives in the Mediterranean parts of Turkey"

Are these two different subspecies from what is listed, or are they synonyms of what is listed? -- llywrch 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

B. vulgaris adanensis according to IPNI is B. adanensis. B. vulgaris macrocarpa is not listed on IPNI. KP Botany 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I added a few links that seemed good (full disclosure: I maintain the vegetable home-growing site linked); I also slightly changed the descriptions, seeking a more uniform format (use the page's own title as the link text). Eric Walker 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

the sea beet page claims that sea beets are the true ancestral form, rather than the vulgaris sub-species —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.106.113.106 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Cultural References

Should there be a section over the pretend band "The Beets" from the cartoon Doug? Should there be a section dedicated to cultural references in general? For instance, Dwight Schrute (a character on the TV show "The Office" in the U.S.) is a self proclaimed beet farmer.

the raddish

Shouldn't there also be an article on the raddish? Perhaps I'm spelling it wrong?

Indeed you are. It's "radish". Tevildoii (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"open-pollinated"

this term should be wikified. I tried to find a target, but came out empty-handed.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done so. The target is open pollination (which needs work, but at least it exists). I suppose there should be a redirect from open-pollinated and/or open pollinated (although the article itself should be a noun, if I'm remembering the WP:MOS correctly). Kingdon (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Beta vulgaris

Maybe the article should be under this heading? That's the advantage of scientific names, universality. It doesn't seem encyclopaedic to look for a town in the Netherlands and run smack into a North American (name for a) vegetable... So Beet would redirect to Beta Vulgaris (this article), Beets to the town with a top-of-page link to this article. Just an idea. Hakluyt bean (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 2 September 2008, at 01:42.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Beet".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Beet

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.