You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cayenne pepper, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A wiki is a user-generated site and is thus not a reliable source. And what the spice bottles in your cupboard happen to contain is not a reliable source either. Please also read WP:OR. Meters (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how is it not constructive? I thought reffing this old statement might be useful & specifying that the nuts are eaten as opposed to the fruits is clarifying. Sorry forgot to add edit summary. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Butia capitata into Draft:Butia odorata. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Sorry, I had no idea. But this is the first time I've done it; it is a somewhat exceptional situation. I'll read through the process more carefully should the need ever arise again. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Butia odorata, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Butia campicola, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hey there!
Seems like you're getting some work done in Butia, and it's appreciated. Thank you. However, I wonder if you're staying. Why not make an account and stay a spell? I think you're a little past the lurking stage, if you're already debating taxonomy. 🙂 No pressure, but with an account you can even skip the AfC process and create articles faster. Think it over. Cheers! --Nessie (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! 86.83.56.115,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
Hiya, Nessie! Well, it's appreciated it's appreciated -Butia are interesting! And thanks for editing/vetting my writings. Ehh... making an account... yeah I'll think about it, I like lurking. The AfC process is sort of slowing me down, but it is 'een stok achter de deur' to make sure the quality is reasonable. Regarding angiosperm taxonomy, excuses, that is something I where happen know something -I know it's not exactly common knowledge. So regarding Subtribus: Attaleinae; two papers came out recently which I haven't read yet, however, one of the conclusions was that Butia is close to Jubaea, not Syagrus, which makes me doubt the validity of the morphological circumcision of Attaleinae (guessing Bailey?). Hence I was on the fence and didn't want to use the rank until I knew more. Not really a fan of overly detailed cladistics anyway; often weakly supported and in this case it serves no diagnostic purpose. If people want it in there, fine, but I'm guessing one day someone will take it out again. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for checking my stuff. NCBI... I had to look that up! Never use it. Sure, I'll change the higher levels of taxonomy if necessary, but I want to read the relevant papers first. But now I look at these Butia taxoboxes, I do notice one thing wrong on many pages: Cocoea should be Cocoseae. Regarding some of those citation-needed thingies, I'll look into that; but two are already in the WCSP ref given (in the 'Accepted by' part). I'll cite Govaerts' 1996 work to original source though, he also has a Brazilian distrib I think, and it's lying here somewhere... I also have that other 1995 book by Henderson (too out of date!). Regarding the uncited 'error' part... well, yeah, it's inference from the works cited earlier... If it was only found once in Uruguay and never seen again, it cannot be native to Brazil, logically. I thought I read some wikipedia thing about citing the same fact only once/not citing the obvious. In any case, I'll try to figure out why all the databases got it wrong (I have two or three hopefully testable theories), or I can word it differently so people can make their own inferences. Give me a tad. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I added the {{Full citation needed}} to the article because most readers will have no idea what is meant by 'Henderson et al. 1995' nor any way to look that up. It's one of the big differences between Wikipedia and pure academic writing.
Yes, it must be Cocoseae following rules of Latin grammar, as it is derived from the word cocos. Maybe Cocoeae is an old syn. from someone with a typographical error or bad grammar, or it is possibly something altogether different that is being confused here. I will change it everywhere. And add the last cite for Henderson & co.. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, checked this, Uhl & Dransfield, Glassman and Henderson cited Moore [1973] in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s for the name Cocoeae. It is a misspelling of Cocoseae which had been authored already by Martius in 1837. This became wider knowledge in 2001, Uhl & Dransfield started using Cocoseae by 2005. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Butia stolonifera, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Butia microspadix, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Butia archeri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Butia arenicola, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Butia pubispatha, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1519-69842015000100011.This article is not released under a compatible license, because the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License does not allow commercial use, and our license does. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean? I added a few sentences to the lede without attribution to clarify the taxonomy, this is cited in the text below. There was/are no references in the lede anyway. Is this what you mean? Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But your new text is great, I was rewriting it to say basically the same thing. Which means I just wasted an hour, but I got what I wanted. Still, I'm going to put the lede I wrote back in again, but now with a ref. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the journal was for a publication called The Auk, and if you look at the last page in that journal article, you can see in Literature Cited, the 1977 Utah University cited. So the information in the journal article is derived partly from that book. That's why I listed it as a source, because it is a source for that journal article. If you want to delete the 1977 book, that's fine, I don't care. I was just trying to provide as much information to the reader as possible.Isaidnoway(talk)03:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be damned... the publication does exist. I'm still confused about the nature of it, though, because: I don't see how he filled 300+ pages with such a narrow subject (a thesis maybe?), no one else quotes it in later literature, and in his 1979 paper the author writes he was still in the field researching the subject in 1977... I'm interested in the taxonomy -it seems this taxon name has been attributed to different populations by different authors. In the sense the wikipedia article is/was written we are going with a species concept that as far as I can tell was first proposed in 1992 but attributed to the 1979 article. But I'm unclear insofar that 1979 truly proposes what is being accepted in 1992. Perhaps the 1977 publication does... The earlier Dickerman taxonomic interpretation seems equally valid. I'll leave the 'book' for now. Cheers, Leo86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great addition at Rheum ribes – this really sorts out the history of this kind of "rhubarb".
What isn't clear in the Cooking section is what part(s) of the plant are eaten. The section opens with "The edible part of the plant is the stem, which is eaten raw or cooked", but "stem" is ambiguous – it may mean the flowering stem (peduncle), but could mean the leaf stalk, I think. Unfortunately the references given that I've managed to find don't make it clear. Have you seen anything that could be used to source this? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Interestingly, the culinary rhubarb in my garden is just beginning to show some flower buds. Now, I would normally immediately cut these off to encourage the plant to put its energy into the leaves and their stalks, but perhaps I shouldn't! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Yah, I don't have a good quote for it, but I am convinced it is the inflorescence -based on morphology (small petioles), photos of markets and text from Miller and Rauwolf. I typed the Arabic and Turkish names in google image search and and found the Wikipedia Commons pic (duhh) which I just added -that should clear things up. It should be remembered that when Arabic/Turkish/Persian sources mention the stalk, they mean this.
Yes! Make a 10th century Baghdadi dish. Eat it! I want to try to grow Rh. palaestinum -that plant looks pretty and doable in a cold frame, as long as it doesn't flower. Earlier attempts at Himalayan species didn't work out...
Shouldn't Etymology be separated out from History again now and brought to the front of the article?
I didn't add a url for the Miller ref; I gather it will be online soon from the Madrid Uni, better wait for that then use Google books.
I don't have much time now -but I'd really like to add the Arabic culinary/medical history of Rh. ribes for balance. I also have something on it in the Unani medicinal texts (India). Maybe split the History section in two or three? First the Islamic world, then Europe & India, for chronological reasons?
So are we removing the history section of Rh. x. hybridum to a new article? I would largely rewrite it using Miller, Bauhin, Alpinus, Dononeus, Gerard, Parkinson, Fuchs, de Jussieu, Monardus, etc. (and of course Dioscorides, Theoprastus, Pliny, Galen, Celsus). The problem now is the wonky sources used: Monahan is a sophist; it looks good, but she's trying to look as if she's making an interesting point about evolution in commodity pricing, and cherry-picking odd references to do so, building her argument with conjecture -but much of her stuff doesn't check out when using more obvious sources. Grieve is also, as often, untrustworthy.
Etymology the tradition for plant articles is to explain the origin and meaning of the scientific name in the taxonomy section. There have been recent concerns about what to do when the author doesn't make a clear statement (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Etymologies when authors don't explicitly give one), so I'm inclined to leave it where it is – it's justified by the sources in the context of the history, less so if moved away.
I'm still thinking about how to manage "rhubarb" based on what we know now. Here are some thoughts.
The primary meaning of "rhubarb" by WP standards is clearly what I'm calling "culinary rhubarb" – the cultivars currently used in western countries in desserts. I think there should continue be an article on this, including history only as far as it is relevant to this topic. Basically this is the current Rhubarb stripped of material outside this remit. I don't think that Miller, Bauhin, Alpinus, Dononeus, Gerard, Parkinson, Fuchs, de Jussieu, Monardus, etc. (and of course Dioscorides, Theoprastus, Pliny, Galen, Celsus) are relevant to the modern Rh. × hybridum.
Two possible secondary meanings are (a) other taxa of Rheum used as food (b) other taxa of Rheum used as medicine. I incline to the view at present that a single article can cover all of this, including the history, since the distinction between culinary and medical uses is not sharp if you look at historical and contemporary sources. There would, of course, be short sections in each of the taxon articles, cross-referencing to this article. Miller, Bauhin, Alpinus, Dononeus, Gerard, Parkinson, Fuchs, de Jussieu, Monardus, etc. (and of course Dioscorides, Theoprastus, Pliny, Galen, Celsus) are highly relevant here.
Discussion on etymology/derivation. Hmmm, case-by-case basis is better -never like a 1 size fits all approach. My wont is to put an Etymology section way in the front, treat it as a synonym for philology, and fill it with names and etymologies for names -Latin or otherwise. But it is just my custom and am not wedded to it. In this case the narrative flow looks good now, but if I add the Arabic history behind the Seraphion section the etymology would be hidden all the way in the back where it is difficult to find. How about just bolding the word etymology for now to distinguish it from history? The Arabic & Persian names look interesting and worthy of study... Regarding the discussion I'm with Nessie. I also don't really see the problem. Just say: author doesn't give etymology, these words mean this (or this) -be precise in wording and cite everything. If a reader still gets it wrong it's on them.
Bullet 1. Yes, I agree with everything you say here. This is why I think the history section could be shortened, but why there should also be a Rhubarb (medicine) article to house extraneous knowledge about the historical meaning of the term -with citations to the old masters. I also recently saw some export data -medicinal rhubarb root is still an export commodity! I also now count 7 species used to produce the drug.
Bullet 2a. Naw, just mention and redirect to species page in the case of Rh. ribes when it comes up. It might be pertinent to Rh. x. hybrid to mention that the Arabic tradition of eating rhubarb is far older, and then wikilink. 2b. What are you saying? Put this info in the genus Rheum page? I don't think that's right. The distinction is indeed not sharp! But my feeling is that it will only get sharper in the future, especially with cross-linked articles to separate the concepts. The species articles should be scientific and about the species, all the antiquated human cultural and commercial fantasies should go in a separate article, with redirects to species when mentioned, and visa-versa. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
