![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 26 March 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Beet to Beta vulgaris. The result of the discussion was page moved. |
The Medicine section has been marked MPOV, but no comments have been placed in the Talk page relating to this, so I thought I'd create this section to see if there is any discussion to be had on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.183.3 ( talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason for the neutrality of this section to be disputed. It is clearly NOT an advertisement and though the info is not sited directly the author gave enough information for anyone to verify the statement's legitimacy. Willow42 ( talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This should not be in dispute. There are three studies more recent than the one cited which show specific human benefits:
ThreeRocks ( talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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?
The people of Shelbyville drink turnip juice, not beetroot juice.
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)
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
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)
Mangelwurzel is a seperate set of verieties, which are not eaten by humans and are only used as fodder. Wwm101 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
trueblood 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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:
Are these two different subspecies from what is listed, or are they synonyms of what is listed? -- llywrch 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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.
Shouldn't there also be an article on the raddish? Perhaps I'm spelling it wrong?
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)
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)
Just in case anyone is watching this page, I've created a new article at Garden beet to cover that variety of beet. This article is a bit confused with some editors seemingly treating the species Beta vulgaris as a whole while others focus in detail on specific varieties. Ideally this article should be general with links to the articles on relevant varieties, but I don't have time to do a thorough job at the moment. DJLayton4 ( talk) 07:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a claim that beet juice causes vocal cord paralysis, but organic beet juice cures this. There was no citation provided, and this seems very far-fetched. If someone has supporting evidence, feel free to add it, but this seems highly unlikely. -- Orthogonalogy ( talk) 11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This page says all cultivated beets are of the subspecies vulgaris, whereas the chard page says that chard is subspecies maritima. -- Dan Wylie-Sears 2 ( talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between what's said in Jewish classic literature and modern practice. The things most closely associated with New Year in European tradition are honey and apples, not beets. 4.249.63.185 ( talk) 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae covers the classification issues. I'm not sure how much should be addressed in this article, or what additional refs we need. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the fact that he doesn't like beets really that important to the article? 75.142.54.211 ( talk) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The articles Beet, Beetroot and Chard should be merged into a single article under the title "Beta vulgaris". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.14.161 ( talk) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
refs 3 and 19 are dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin-UK ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved; Beet redirected to Beetroot. Mini apolis 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Beet →
Beta vulgaris – Redirect the current title,
Beet to
Beetroot. This article is about a plant species that produces several edible products, including a root vegetable called Beet (US English) or Beetroot (UK English). Beet is ambiguous, referring either to the root vegetable, or the species as a whole.
WP:FLORA generally supports using the scientific name as a title and this guideline is endorsed by the WP:AT policy at
WP:MOSAT. The species is a whole is generally not discussed outside of a botanical context, where the scientific name would be appropriate. The vast majority of incoming links to this article use beet in a context where it is clear that the root vegetable, not the species, is the intended subject. Beet should redirect to Beetroot, and this article should be moved to the scientific name.
Plantdrew (
talk)
20:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There are two "History" sections in the article (also, the root article has no history, but a trivia section). Is this left over from the recent move? Could someone take a look? Jd2718 ( talk) 00:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Beta vulgaris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Beta vulgaris. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, come. Like anyone knew what oxidative stress was a century ago, let alone centuries. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 08:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beta vulgaris. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 26 March 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Beet to Beta vulgaris. The result of the discussion was page moved. |
The Medicine section has been marked MPOV, but no comments have been placed in the Talk page relating to this, so I thought I'd create this section to see if there is any discussion to be had on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.183.3 ( talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason for the neutrality of this section to be disputed. It is clearly NOT an advertisement and though the info is not sited directly the author gave enough information for anyone to verify the statement's legitimacy. Willow42 ( talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This should not be in dispute. There are three studies more recent than the one cited which show specific human benefits:
ThreeRocks ( talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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?
The people of Shelbyville drink turnip juice, not beetroot juice.
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)
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
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)
Mangelwurzel is a seperate set of verieties, which are not eaten by humans and are only used as fodder. Wwm101 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
trueblood 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
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:
Are these two different subspecies from what is listed, or are they synonyms of what is listed? -- llywrch 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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.
Shouldn't there also be an article on the raddish? Perhaps I'm spelling it wrong?
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)
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)
Just in case anyone is watching this page, I've created a new article at Garden beet to cover that variety of beet. This article is a bit confused with some editors seemingly treating the species Beta vulgaris as a whole while others focus in detail on specific varieties. Ideally this article should be general with links to the articles on relevant varieties, but I don't have time to do a thorough job at the moment. DJLayton4 ( talk) 07:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a claim that beet juice causes vocal cord paralysis, but organic beet juice cures this. There was no citation provided, and this seems very far-fetched. If someone has supporting evidence, feel free to add it, but this seems highly unlikely. -- Orthogonalogy ( talk) 11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This page says all cultivated beets are of the subspecies vulgaris, whereas the chard page says that chard is subspecies maritima. -- Dan Wylie-Sears 2 ( talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between what's said in Jewish classic literature and modern practice. The things most closely associated with New Year in European tradition are honey and apples, not beets. 4.249.63.185 ( talk) 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae covers the classification issues. I'm not sure how much should be addressed in this article, or what additional refs we need. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the fact that he doesn't like beets really that important to the article? 75.142.54.211 ( talk) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The articles Beet, Beetroot and Chard should be merged into a single article under the title "Beta vulgaris". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.14.161 ( talk) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
refs 3 and 19 are dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin-UK ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved; Beet redirected to Beetroot. Mini apolis 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Beet →
Beta vulgaris – Redirect the current title,
Beet to
Beetroot. This article is about a plant species that produces several edible products, including a root vegetable called Beet (US English) or Beetroot (UK English). Beet is ambiguous, referring either to the root vegetable, or the species as a whole.
WP:FLORA generally supports using the scientific name as a title and this guideline is endorsed by the WP:AT policy at
WP:MOSAT. The species is a whole is generally not discussed outside of a botanical context, where the scientific name would be appropriate. The vast majority of incoming links to this article use beet in a context where it is clear that the root vegetable, not the species, is the intended subject. Beet should redirect to Beetroot, and this article should be moved to the scientific name.
Plantdrew (
talk)
20:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There are two "History" sections in the article (also, the root article has no history, but a trivia section). Is this left over from the recent move? Could someone take a look? Jd2718 ( talk) 00:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Beta vulgaris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Beta vulgaris. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, come. Like anyone knew what oxidative stress was a century ago, let alone centuries. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 08:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beta vulgaris. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)