![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As a random Australian browsing the history of this page as it's evolved for the last decade, I'd like to point out that the term "Bushfood" is not deserving of a mention in the opening sentence. It's barely deserving of a passing mention as a term that may have been used by a tiny minority of wankers1 for a brief instant in history (no doubt with well intentions, but certainly misguidedly). I've never heard the term in my 37 years and I doubt my children, or my children's children ever will. Hope that helps vindicate some of the discussions that went on here about it. Just because someone coined the term in a paper once, doesn't make it a thing. I'd be more interested in the etymology of the term "tucker" actually, why doesn't someone mention that instead of trying to dismiss the term as "colloquial" and therefore somewhat less legitimate? 124.181.125.20 ( talk) 17:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
1. For want of a term as fitting for anyone that would try to reshape our perception of reality in this manner, regardless of their motivations.
Bushfood? I've rarely heard the term - Bush tucker is a more common expression in my experience. Googling finds 33,400 for bushfood, 71,800 for "bush food" and 253,000 for "bush tucker".
The move from Bush tucker to this article appears to have been done by an anonymous user, otherwise I would contact them about it. I suggest moving back.
After the name's sorted out, redlinks Australian bush tucker, Australian bush food, and Australian bush foods, and possibly bush food should redirect to this article. -- Singkong2005 06:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that people who harvest or produce the foods prefer the term "bushfood". Even if such evidence were to come to light, it's not clear to me why what is effectively technical jargon such as "bushfood" should override normal terminology. There are many contrary examples in Wikipedia--a while back I discovered that German Shepherd Dog, the correct and unambiguous term, redirects to German Shepherd, which could offend some shepherds I know. Once again I propose renaming this page, and I'll do it if there are no objections within a month. Groogle ( talk) 02:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the headlines in the artical, font sizes are bigger?-- KevinWindows 08:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As it was mentioned I tried to link Norforce to the Wiki page as per the ol' square brackets method. But it's a red/broken link for some reason. Anybody a little more experienced with Wiki than I know why? Ozlucien ( talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hallo all,
Although I am not a native speaker of English and have never set my foot on Australian soil, I doubt that the equation "Bushfood" = "that which has traditionally used by Australian Aboriginals" is accurate (and if I am right then the article is misleading). Years ago I read an article on mercenaries in Africa in an English language magazine (sorry I forgot the name of that one) and remember a passage where one "old hand" was quoted as saying "...Bushfood is good for your immune system - that's what they teach you at the South African Army...". I am completely sure they wrote the term "Bushfood" there. And as an South African who worked all his life in that continent he certainly did not refer to Australian plants and stuff, did he? So I infer that what the article in its current form says about the use of the term is not wrong, but too limited and hence gives the reader a wrong impression - and therfore needs to be corrected and amended.
Otherwise fine and highly interesting.
Regards, Sophophilos 147.142.186.54 ( talk) 12:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I support John Moss's analysis. With all respect Thefamousseccles, I'm not sure on what basis you derived your figures for searches on Google, because Google shows "bush foods" with 24,800,000 hits while "bush tucker" only gets 759,000 hits. I think that is self explantory as to what is the prominent term in popular usage. Perhaps the term "bush food" is also used in South Africa, but popular current use going on the first 100 entries on Google clearly is dominated by the reference to Australian native foods. Phytogent ( talk) 04:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this sentence is totally correct as a absolute statement: "However, despite the industry being founded on Aboriginal knowledge of the plants,...". Aboriginal knowledge definitely was the original source of information for the commercial use of native food plants of Central Australia and the Top End, like wattle seed, desert tomato, kakadu plum and quangdong. However, the direct link with Aboriginal knowledge is not so clear with the commercialization of east coast native food plants like, riberry, Davidson's plum, Illawarra plum, warrigal greens, lemon myrtle, native mint, river mint, anise myrtle, finger lime and Dorrigo pepper. Bunya nut is one of the few east coast species where Aboriginal knowledge clearly played a primary role in commercial development of the species. The Aboriginal usage aspects for many of the east coast species was retrofitted into the historical profile of the commercialized species for food safety arguments after the species were already in commercial use, but in some cases, Aboriginal knowledge on east coast food plants is scant or non-existant as a tragic result of the disruption to traditional culture by non-indigenous colonization. It's often hard to come-by Aboriginal names for many east coast species. I wonder how we can change this sentence to more accurately reflect the history of commercial development without being indifferent to the point? Aareo ( talk) 11:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. We have a unanimous consensus that this is the common name in the relevant variety of English. Cúchullain t/ c 18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Bushfood →
Bush tucker – Finally had enough and am proposing this move on a formal basis. "Bushfood" is an uncommon neologism that's primarily the result of
cultural cringe and the consequent unwillingness to use the vernacular Australian term bush tucker, which not only is predominant for this meaning among Australians more generally, but is more respectful of the Indigenous origin of the term in
Kriol bush taga. Straight Google searches demonstrate the predominance of "bush tucker" ("bush tucker":
425,000 hits; "bushfood":
186,000 hits; "bush food":
140,000 hits as at 07 May 2015), and
Google Ngrams further confirms that in published books "bush tucker" is more common by an order of magnitude (and moreover shows how rare the compound word "bushfood" is, even when compared to the uncompounded "bush food"). There is no reasonable justification for maintaining the page at the current title and it should be moved promptly, with "bushfood" and perhaps also "bush food" as redirects.
Thefamouseccles (
talk)
03:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As at 04:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC), it looks like we've got pretty strong consensus on this per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGVAR, WP:TIES and WP:TITLEVAR, to which I'd add WP:PRECISION (on the basis of distinguishing Australian bush food from bush food elsewhere in the world, as noted by 209.211.131.181). Since I proposed the move, I don't feel comfortable closing the discussion in case it sparks issues of conflict of interest. Anyone else want to make the move happen? Thefamouseccles ( talk) 04:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bush tucker. 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) 06:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bush tucker. 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.
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) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
These lists could be presented in a much more helpful way. It is not adequate to group all states together like this (eg, bush tucker of Victoria is completely irrelevant for people looking for bush tucker in Tasmania)
I'd recommend creating a sortable table for each 'culinary province'.
The table for each culinary province should have 5 columns: i) Plant part ii) Scientific name iii) Common name iv) Examples v) Citation
I will create a table, specifically for Tasmania, to show what I feel is a more informative layout. Vitreology ( talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I note this plant in the list: Cycnogeton procerum (formerly Triglochin procera) BUT when I go to that link, it doesn't bring up the page Cycnogeton procerum but instead links to the Triglochin page. I searched for the Cycnogeton procerum page, but it only brought up the Cynogeton general page. On the general page there's mention of Cycnogeton procerum but there's no existing page/link under that name.
Which is it? Is it still Triglochin procera or is it now Cycnogeton procerum? This needs to be corrected/updated and followed through to ensure any references to it, are corrected/updated on all relevant pages, and not just a confusing mention on this page.
Tzali ( talk) 16:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I note on the Dianella tasmanica page that it says "The fruits of Dianella tasmanica are toxic to an unknown degree and should not be eaten. They ..., produce an irritating tingling sensation in the mouth when consumed." Therefore I'd suggest it should be removed from this list, unless someone is able to determine if it's truly edible and not toxic.
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As a random Australian browsing the history of this page as it's evolved for the last decade, I'd like to point out that the term "Bushfood" is not deserving of a mention in the opening sentence. It's barely deserving of a passing mention as a term that may have been used by a tiny minority of wankers1 for a brief instant in history (no doubt with well intentions, but certainly misguidedly). I've never heard the term in my 37 years and I doubt my children, or my children's children ever will. Hope that helps vindicate some of the discussions that went on here about it. Just because someone coined the term in a paper once, doesn't make it a thing. I'd be more interested in the etymology of the term "tucker" actually, why doesn't someone mention that instead of trying to dismiss the term as "colloquial" and therefore somewhat less legitimate? 124.181.125.20 ( talk) 17:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
1. For want of a term as fitting for anyone that would try to reshape our perception of reality in this manner, regardless of their motivations.
Bushfood? I've rarely heard the term - Bush tucker is a more common expression in my experience. Googling finds 33,400 for bushfood, 71,800 for "bush food" and 253,000 for "bush tucker".
The move from Bush tucker to this article appears to have been done by an anonymous user, otherwise I would contact them about it. I suggest moving back.
After the name's sorted out, redlinks Australian bush tucker, Australian bush food, and Australian bush foods, and possibly bush food should redirect to this article. -- Singkong2005 06:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that people who harvest or produce the foods prefer the term "bushfood". Even if such evidence were to come to light, it's not clear to me why what is effectively technical jargon such as "bushfood" should override normal terminology. There are many contrary examples in Wikipedia--a while back I discovered that German Shepherd Dog, the correct and unambiguous term, redirects to German Shepherd, which could offend some shepherds I know. Once again I propose renaming this page, and I'll do it if there are no objections within a month. Groogle ( talk) 02:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the headlines in the artical, font sizes are bigger?-- KevinWindows 08:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As it was mentioned I tried to link Norforce to the Wiki page as per the ol' square brackets method. But it's a red/broken link for some reason. Anybody a little more experienced with Wiki than I know why? Ozlucien ( talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hallo all,
Although I am not a native speaker of English and have never set my foot on Australian soil, I doubt that the equation "Bushfood" = "that which has traditionally used by Australian Aboriginals" is accurate (and if I am right then the article is misleading). Years ago I read an article on mercenaries in Africa in an English language magazine (sorry I forgot the name of that one) and remember a passage where one "old hand" was quoted as saying "...Bushfood is good for your immune system - that's what they teach you at the South African Army...". I am completely sure they wrote the term "Bushfood" there. And as an South African who worked all his life in that continent he certainly did not refer to Australian plants and stuff, did he? So I infer that what the article in its current form says about the use of the term is not wrong, but too limited and hence gives the reader a wrong impression - and therfore needs to be corrected and amended.
Otherwise fine and highly interesting.
Regards, Sophophilos 147.142.186.54 ( talk) 12:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I support John Moss's analysis. With all respect Thefamousseccles, I'm not sure on what basis you derived your figures for searches on Google, because Google shows "bush foods" with 24,800,000 hits while "bush tucker" only gets 759,000 hits. I think that is self explantory as to what is the prominent term in popular usage. Perhaps the term "bush food" is also used in South Africa, but popular current use going on the first 100 entries on Google clearly is dominated by the reference to Australian native foods. Phytogent ( talk) 04:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this sentence is totally correct as a absolute statement: "However, despite the industry being founded on Aboriginal knowledge of the plants,...". Aboriginal knowledge definitely was the original source of information for the commercial use of native food plants of Central Australia and the Top End, like wattle seed, desert tomato, kakadu plum and quangdong. However, the direct link with Aboriginal knowledge is not so clear with the commercialization of east coast native food plants like, riberry, Davidson's plum, Illawarra plum, warrigal greens, lemon myrtle, native mint, river mint, anise myrtle, finger lime and Dorrigo pepper. Bunya nut is one of the few east coast species where Aboriginal knowledge clearly played a primary role in commercial development of the species. The Aboriginal usage aspects for many of the east coast species was retrofitted into the historical profile of the commercialized species for food safety arguments after the species were already in commercial use, but in some cases, Aboriginal knowledge on east coast food plants is scant or non-existant as a tragic result of the disruption to traditional culture by non-indigenous colonization. It's often hard to come-by Aboriginal names for many east coast species. I wonder how we can change this sentence to more accurately reflect the history of commercial development without being indifferent to the point? Aareo ( talk) 11:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. We have a unanimous consensus that this is the common name in the relevant variety of English. Cúchullain t/ c 18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Bushfood →
Bush tucker – Finally had enough and am proposing this move on a formal basis. "Bushfood" is an uncommon neologism that's primarily the result of
cultural cringe and the consequent unwillingness to use the vernacular Australian term bush tucker, which not only is predominant for this meaning among Australians more generally, but is more respectful of the Indigenous origin of the term in
Kriol bush taga. Straight Google searches demonstrate the predominance of "bush tucker" ("bush tucker":
425,000 hits; "bushfood":
186,000 hits; "bush food":
140,000 hits as at 07 May 2015), and
Google Ngrams further confirms that in published books "bush tucker" is more common by an order of magnitude (and moreover shows how rare the compound word "bushfood" is, even when compared to the uncompounded "bush food"). There is no reasonable justification for maintaining the page at the current title and it should be moved promptly, with "bushfood" and perhaps also "bush food" as redirects.
Thefamouseccles (
talk)
03:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As at 04:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC), it looks like we've got pretty strong consensus on this per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGVAR, WP:TIES and WP:TITLEVAR, to which I'd add WP:PRECISION (on the basis of distinguishing Australian bush food from bush food elsewhere in the world, as noted by 209.211.131.181). Since I proposed the move, I don't feel comfortable closing the discussion in case it sparks issues of conflict of interest. Anyone else want to make the move happen? Thefamouseccles ( talk) 04:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bush tucker. 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) 06:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bush tucker. 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.
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) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
These lists could be presented in a much more helpful way. It is not adequate to group all states together like this (eg, bush tucker of Victoria is completely irrelevant for people looking for bush tucker in Tasmania)
I'd recommend creating a sortable table for each 'culinary province'.
The table for each culinary province should have 5 columns: i) Plant part ii) Scientific name iii) Common name iv) Examples v) Citation
I will create a table, specifically for Tasmania, to show what I feel is a more informative layout. Vitreology ( talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I note this plant in the list: Cycnogeton procerum (formerly Triglochin procera) BUT when I go to that link, it doesn't bring up the page Cycnogeton procerum but instead links to the Triglochin page. I searched for the Cycnogeton procerum page, but it only brought up the Cynogeton general page. On the general page there's mention of Cycnogeton procerum but there's no existing page/link under that name.
Which is it? Is it still Triglochin procera or is it now Cycnogeton procerum? This needs to be corrected/updated and followed through to ensure any references to it, are corrected/updated on all relevant pages, and not just a confusing mention on this page.
Tzali ( talk) 16:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I note on the Dianella tasmanica page that it says "The fruits of Dianella tasmanica are toxic to an unknown degree and should not be eaten. They ..., produce an irritating tingling sensation in the mouth when consumed." Therefore I'd suggest it should be removed from this list, unless someone is able to determine if it's truly edible and not toxic.