Talk:Rutabaga/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old discussions

We should add a paragraph about this plants incredible ability to psych out opponents in just about any sport. I can't tell you how many times i've induced gutter balls out of my bowling partners by casually saying "rutabaga!" as they approach the foul line, it's amazingly effective. I think mainly because most people are unfamiliar with the plant and they loose concentration when they begin to think about what exactly a rutabaga is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.81.89 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this correctly Raphanus sativus or is it Brassica napobrassica? Imc 19:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Raphanus is radish! how could I forget? Imc 19:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I found them in the local supermarket labeled as a "yellow turnip". Should this be included somewhere?

I changed the page to indicate that the rutabaga was produced by crossing the white turnip and the cabbage. I'm not sure who was responsible for the cross. It may have been the same guy that crossed radish and cabbage to produce rabbage. However, here is a helpful sight: http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ecoph11.htm

The second paragraph is becoming rather confusing, as more and more data is added in this rambling style. Perhaps it should simply be deleted, and the link to the disambiguation page with its neat table made a little more prominent? --Doric Loon 22:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Northeners and Swedes

Any source on the northern English bit? I was brought up in Yorkshire and we always called a swede a swede, and a turnip a turnip (and grew both). Granted, we might have said 'neeps' on Burns night, but otherwise... --83.67.57.244 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tempered the language here, having asked around a bit. --BarryNorton 08:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Tyneside and we called them turnips, so I've altered the article to say "much of England" (besides which, it would contradict itself otherwise). I could also say that we called swedes "swedes" and turnips "turnips", but I don't think that would really enlighten anyone! :)

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a regular(ish !) topic of conversation that crops up at work; Where I'm from, in the South of England, a turnip is the smallish (about the size of a medium apple) vegetable, often with a slight purple-ish shading and a swede is the bigger (often upwards of football size) vegetable which is of varying shades of orange inside. Some people I work with, from the North of England refer to these vegetables with the names switched - what I would call a turnip, they call a swede, and vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlegmatist (talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

the articles on "rutabega" and "kohlrabi" seem to cover the same thing

These should be "disambiguated," yes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutabega http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlrabi

I don't know how to edit, so just wanted to point this out.

bruce

Btoman 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kohlrabi has nothing do do with Kohlrübe (Rutabaga) The Kohlrübe grows inside the earth, while Kohlrabi grows above it.

How Bizarre

Rutabaga??? Surely this is the name of an African country, or possibly a world music influenced jazz fusion band? there is absolutely no way this is the name of a vegetable, that's just completely nuts. Seriously, this is right up there with Zuccini and Eggplant for sheer weirdness and further proof that Americans just don't speak the same language as the rest of us... Ok, rant over, but surely this in an inherently funny word? --JamesTheNumberless 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I prefer the term swede – despite (or because) being a Swede. Besides swede mash is EEeevil!! Said: Rursus 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Turnip vs Swede

I am confused

I have today searched a few Internet pages and all of them including Wiki have Scots eating swedes on Burns night as far as I am aware this is completely wrong, on Burns night, I have always had turnip, never swede, when cooked turnip is orange/yellow coloured and swede remains white. and have never heard of swedes being called neeps, this is a Scots word for turnip, which I have never heard referred to swede. 58.104.150.116 07:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Rabhaw

Scottish terminology regarding Swedes and Turnips is confusing. Swedes are the yellow ones. Turnips are white. But in scottish terminology 'Turnip' or 'neep' refers to both of them, and Swedes are much more common, so on hearing about swedes (the correct name for them) I'm assuming you assumed they were the white ones, which are much rarer. Barry m (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is all very confusing. I don't know the botany nor the customs anywhere but where I live. In Western Norway, kålrabistappe is orange, even if you don't add carrot to it. --Hordaland (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Isle of Skye

Reading Wikipedia and looking at a few pictures (Wikipedia and Google images) I'm happy that neeps are rutabaga and not turnips.

The neeps we eat in the clapshot that my grandmother taught me to make on the Isle of Skye are rutabaga. The flesh is a pale yellow verging on orange and not white like a turnip.

Bsdnazz

Taste?

Is it possible to add a section/paragraph on taste? (eg. comparing it to similar vegetables in terms of taste, texture, etc.?) Natebailey 05:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

http://lbn.threat.tv/mrhands.mpg

Is a Swede really a Rutabaga or just very similar

It seems that some think that a Swede and a Rutabaga are two different things. The confusion is blaimed on American's. Please see the web page below.

http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/encyclopaedia!openframeset&frame=Right&Src=/edible.nsf/pages/rutabaga!opendocument

Dennis Hueber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhueber2 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the author of the above link didn't understand the genetics involved. Here is a link which should make the matter clearer:

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ecoph11.htm

As you can see the swede is in fact a "tetraploid hybrid (4n=38) [that] has 2 haploid sets of turnip chromosomes (10 + 10) and 2 haploid sets of cabbage chromosomes (9 + 9) that can pair up normally during meiosis I." It obvious really ;) simonthebold (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion: Swede = Rutabaga simonthebold (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Turnips in Lancashire

I grew up in Lancashire, England, and there we did indeed hollow out 'turnips' for Halloween. Only when I moved South (as far as Leicestershire) did I learn that people called them swedes, for they were the large yellow ones. So, they are yellow turnips, which we simply called turnips. I never met the white turnips though before coming South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlerbert (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rutabaga in Computer Science" Vandalism

Somebody keeps posting the following:

Rutabaga is a fundamental algorithm used in many computer science techniques, including semantic analysis.

The function takes the general form:

int Rutabaga(int a, double b, bool c) { return a + 2; }

This is so obviously ridiculous that I'm not even going to bother to explain why. Apparently, I'm the third person to remove this nonsense. I suggest the page ought to be locked so that it doesn't come back Mrchaotica (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what we should do. Lock this article before more damage is done to rutabega wisdom literature. Myles325a (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The function doesn't do very much, so it cannot be considered a real compsci technique. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Zappa and Rutabegas

Personally, I don’t think any article on rutabaga would be complete without mention of Frank Zappa’s immortal hymn to vegetables “Calling Any Vegetable”, which devotes a whole chorus to this wonderful vegetable. This is certainly worthy of a Pop References par, and presumably no one is going to complain that we are lowering the tone of the subject, as happens when such pop references are listed for Occam ’s razor and suchlike. And, after all, we are talking Zappa, and a famous song that is probably the only one dedicated to vegetables.

Btw, rutabaga, sounds doubly funny in Australia, where “root” is a synonym for the 4-letter f word. Myles325a (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The piccy

This is a hobby horse of mine, but I do wish that piccies like the one of the rutabega shown here, had some kind of reference scale along with it, like a human hand. For those unaquainted with rutabegas, the object depicted could be the size of a grape or a large pumpkin. Myles325a (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Mabberley's Plant Book, Third Edition, page 120, shows the botanical name for this plant as Brassica napus L. Napobrassica Group. This cultivar group treatment is preferable with highly cultivated plants, as it better differentiates between "wild" plants and "cultivated" plants. This treatment also indicates that the plant is not a hybrid, but rather a selection of this variable species. Avena177 (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

I don't understand why this bizarre African sounding name is being used to describe what the vast majority of the English speaking world call a "Swede". I for one had never even heard of the term "Rutabaga" before stumbling across this article. Is this purely for definition as there are several articles describing different things for the word "Swede"? Or is it purely american English attempting (but failing miserably) to pose as something that the rest of the world understands? This in itself is bizarre as the article states quite clearly that even a lot of Americans call it a "Swedish turnip" or other turnip-esque names, implying that the use of "Rutabaga" isn't even the de facto name in the US! Fair enough the Swede disambiguation page links here but shouldn't it be the other way around given that the American title is unknown outside of the US? The title should be "Swede (Vegetable)" for clarity. Roobens (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem Rectified and page moved from America centric name to majority English language name and also disambiguates from people from Sweden.--Somali123 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hasty move disputed. Where is the evidence that "the vast majority of the English speaking world calls [the rutabaga] a swede"? The move is also inappropriate per WP:NCCN: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things (emphasis added). Since the name "swede" conflicts with the name of a group of people while "rutabaga" does not conflict with anything else, "rutabaga" should be used. There would be nothing inherently wrong, IMO, with having a redirect from Swede (root vegetable), although since that is an unlikely search term and an unlikely spontaneous link in an article, having "rutabaga" at Swede, with the explanation that "swede" is another name for the vegetable, was probably quite sufficient. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is please stop being America centric used in the edit summary of the page move? That seems inflammatory. Can someone point me to the discussion leading to consensus on the page move? It seems there should have at least been minimal discussion outside of edit summaries. ^Law _shoot! 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, I've just found this page and it seems obvious that swede is the more widely recognised term. "swede cook -sweden" gets 400,000 hits on google, "rutabaga cook -sweden" gets 61,500. That seems a clear majority, and gets rid of most pages about Swede the nationality. Malick78 (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

swede recipes -cocktail - swedish gets 110,000 hits versus rustabaga recipes get 112,000 hits. We don't go by Google hits, because you probably have not read all 400,000 hits and I will bet you real money that at least some of those hits are about a Swede who cooks, are duplicates or are pages that have both of the two words on the page but not together. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Google search method is incredibly flawed. By using the random word 'cook', you've assumed that people only search for rutabagas/swedes for the purposes of cooking. Also, rutabaga is frequently misspelled (I spelled it rutabega consistently before finding out in my Google search that it is otherwise). It does seem that Google takes this misspelling into account, but I'd have to play with it some more to find out for sure. A search for 'swede vegetable' brings up 177,000 hits while a search for 'rutabaga vegetable' brings up 138,000 hits. Swede still wins out, but not nearly by as much as you'd like to make it seem. Also, due to the the other meaning of the word swede, you'd really have to go through and look at the pages to make sure it's not being used to refer to someone from Sweden. In fact, 'swede vegetable -sweden' takes the hits down to 129,000 while 'rutabaga vegetable -sweden' stays at 138,000 hits. There, I've proven rutabaga is preferred by most people on the internet. Once again, this proves nothing. Yarjka (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is a "Vegetbale" !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.84.248 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a vegetable that originates in Europe, and travelled to the US from Europe. Very very few English speakers in Europe will ever have heard of a "Rutabaga" before trying to find it here. It does not make sense to call it by that name - where I'm from (N. Ireland), it's just a 'turnip' or a 'yellow turnip'. The article title should be 'yellow turnip' as it's the most widely understood or the latin name. Alternatively, the turnip page should be a disambiguation page, rather than just directing to the page on white turnips. 80.219.51.173 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus for either name, leave the article at the original. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please define original. Original name requested to be moved from was Swede (root vegetable) to Rutabaga. Please define what is meantas original as an admin unilaterally moved the page before discussions ended.--90.241.209.27 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See my reply here. Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Swede (root vegetable) to Rutabaga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.235.27 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been linke to on the Food and Drink Wikiproject page

I've added the "move" template to the top of this page. As I described above, per WP:NCCN, this article should be entitled Rutabaga. The move has also been requested at WP:RM. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Rutabaga may be the common name in the US, but elsewhere in the English-speaking world it's called a swede, so IMHO, this is the most common name for the purposes of WP:NCCN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: for two reasons: (a) WP:NCCN; (b) WP:ENGVAR says "retain existing variety" (Rutabaga was the original variety). I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if there is some compelling evidence that no-one ever says "Rutabaga" (I don't use it). Sam⁵ (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The above comments are lunacy. I being englsih have never in my life heard a Swede called such a stupid thing as a Ruabaga. Just becasue it was called that first by some yank dosen't mean it is right or sohould remian for the rest of the English speaking world.--Somali123 (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't build an encyclopedia on your lack of knowledge. The fact that you have never heard of something doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and nowhere in our naming conventions can I find any language that says anything like "Wikipedia articles should use names that are part of Somali123's vocabulary." So your comment simply isn't relevant to this discussion. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Swede appears to be the most common term, world-wide, in English for this vegetable. - fchd (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - As I pointed out above (in an earlier discussion), the relevant text from WP:NCCN reads: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things (emphasis mine). In this case, that name is unquestionably rutabaga. Swede conflicts with the names of other people or things. We can also look to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names for guidance:

Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.

(Emphasis in original.) Had these guidelines been followed, the article might not have been moved in the first place and we wouldn't even be here.

--Tkynerd (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here in Britain I never knew what rutabaga was until I saw this move request and discussion just now. I know what swedes (the vegetable) are: I have eaten and grown plenty of them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what redirects are for. WP:NCCN should be followed. --Tkynerd (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Since "swede" appears to be the most widely used term, worldwide. --DAJF (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Original name and should NEVER have been moved in the first place without discussion. ^Law _shoot! 04:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• comment - it took 15 days to respond to the move occuring. This implies that it is not exactly a hot issue. As India, Great Britian, Australia and New Zealand all refer to this vegetable as a Swede. Rutabaga is not the correct name for the majority of English speakers.--Somali123 (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per nominator's reasons --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - primarily by WP:ENGVAR (retain existing name): the unilateral move on 16:16, 12 November 2008 by User:Somali123 should never have happened, certainly not without discussion. So revert to original name is obviously in order. Further support: WP:NCCN. --Zlerman (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• WP:NCCN is merley a guideline and when over 1 billion people compared to a couple of hundred million are refering to somithing, I think the Billion are in a clear majority. Also that page states "Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers". This debate proves rutabaga is not clearly recognisable by at least 1 billion English speakers.--Somali123 (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This debate proves nothing of the kind. It simply proves that there are English speakers in the world who have never heard the name "rutabaga." And if WP:NCCN is "merely a guideline," there's no reason for us to use the most common name for this article, as it's WP:NCCN that tells us to do so (with exceptions, as I've commented elsewhere). --Tkynerd (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I reverted the move pending consensus. It would be nice to have some dictionary excerpts to support either side of the argument. Peter ^Isotalo 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. From my Concise OED: Rutabaga n. North American term for Swede. Origin: C18 from Swedish dialect. Swede n. Brit. a large round yellow-fleshed root vegetable originally introduced into Scotland from Sweden. So this seems to be a clear WP:ENGVAR issue, and the page should be left at Rutabaga. (For the record, I am English, and never use the word "Rutabaga".) Sam⁵ (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's interesting to note that even that OED definition is ambiguous ("North American term for Swede": what kind of Swede are they talking about?). Thanks for the reference. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That interpretation seems overly creative to me. It's quite obvious that they're referring to the root vegetable. Peter ^Isotalo 16:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not at all obvious. Here is the entire OED entry: Rutabaga n. North American term for Swede. Origin: C18 from Swedish dialect. It seems obvious that they're not talking about Swedish people, although that interpretation is contradicted by the capitalization of "Swede" (the name of the vegetable is not capitalized). There's no clue that they're talking about a vegetable. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• strong oppose No concensus has been reached so why has this been moved. Wikipedia works on the most common use by the largest number of speakers of english. Such as articles on the EU are in standard english and as only North America refer to a Swede as a rutabaga it is absurd to move the article.--Somali123 (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was moved after being discussed for about one day and with support from only one another editor. There was no attempt to solicit outside comments, the arguments were rather contentious and there were no references to dictionaries or any other appropriate sources. I see no indication that "swede" has anything approaching consensus, which is why it's reasonable to go back to status quo before the unilateral edit. I urge you to try to back up your claims with something. Otherwise it'll just be a battle of opinions. Peter ^Isotalo 13:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like the pair of you to both prove your posiotions as only one person being required to is barmy.--134.225.179.111 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article as it is currently written. The primary term used throughout is Swede and the title of the page is Rutabaga. All that was done was a change of the title. The text still reads Swede all the way through. This seems stupid and this must be rectified. I think changing back to Swede (root vegetable) for the time being is the most sensible thing to do. This is because the main text is harder to rectify that just the title.--134.225.179.111 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I haven't come down on either side. All I did was to revert a unilteral action.

• Oppose A lot of the support here cites WP:NCCN but this is not a case in which that applies, "Swede (root vegetable)" does not conflict, as it states that it is a root vegetable. Can I point out that the number 1 (and clearly most important) point in the Naming conventions is "Use the most recognisable name". I think a lot of the supporters here are overlooking the fact that most of the english speaking world do not recognise the name "Rutabaga". For me this overrules the confliction convention and the WP:ENGVAR issue in any case. Rutabaga is purely america-centric. And as stated in my previous post, it seems that a fair few U.S. citizens don't even call it a Rutabaga, so why should Wiki have to pander to the minority of English speakers that do? Roobens (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As a Canadian, I had no idea anybody called a rutabaga anything else until today. Srnec (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I support a move, but to Brassica napobrassica. This has often been the compromise when two well-known common names can't be reconciled. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) is undergoing discussion right now that may inform this discussion. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is an interesting idea and well worth considering in this case. Redirects could take care of the common names. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, having just read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Exceptions, which explicitly says plant articles should use the scientific name per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), I'm strongly inclined to support this option. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • So everything from Turnip to Lettuce will be renamed? I don't see that happening so I'm against moving this to its bio-name. ^Law _shoot! 05:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)**
  • I oppose the move to scientific name as this will lead to even further confusion, and I also take issue with the phrase "two well-known common names", for the umpteenth time, Rutabaga is not a well known or widely used name in the English speaking world. Also can I just say that this edit page now looks ridiculous because Peter in his haste to undo the "hasty" move to "Swede root vegetable" left the top of the page now saying "It has been proposed below that Rutabaga be renamed and moved to Rutabaga". I don't know how to rectify this but it would be nice if people could practise what they preach in regards to "hasty" title edits. Roobens (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that going for an all-out scientific naming is rather excessive. Roobens, if you're concerned about the current lack of consistency of the move template, how about we file a request for comments? It's just as relevant as listing the article at WP:RM and would bring comments from even more users into the discussion. Peter ^Isotalo 16:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• As regards listing species under their Latin biological names, some would day that the arguments are different with a common garden and kitchen vegetable from with a shy species of flower only found growing in the shade of one species of tree in a particular remote forest. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Additional comment If "rutabaga" is considered not to be the appropriate article title, wouldn't it be better to move the article to Swedish turnip rather than the cumbersome swede (root vegetable)? For example, compare the more colloquial "Danish" with the more formal Danish pastry. Peter ^Isotalo 11:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems unwise, to me, to move the article from Rutabaga, the name by which this vegetable is nearly universally known in North America, to Swedish turnip, a less common name than rutabaga. None of the other names comes close to swede and rutabaga in breadth of usage. --Tkynerd (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to believe the people who have said that the American term is more or less unknown to them, even if this alone does not merit "swede". I'm quite partial to American English, but I don't see any convincing evidence that "rutabaga" is the most common term. "Swedish turnip" was just a suggestion that seemed less contrived than "swede (root vegetable)" or a piped title of any kind. If it's considered more obscure, sure, but I think the analogy with Danish pastry was pretty relevant. Peter ^Isotalo 16:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You're missing the point, which is that while rutabaga may be less common than swede as a name for this vegetable, Swedish turnip is much less common than rutabaga. Apparently I need to quote WP:NCCN again: use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Somali, your edits and moves were a clear violation of the WP:ENGVAR policy. Also, while the term "swede" is more common outside of North America, there are some 330 million English speakers in North America compared to 90 million in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand combined. By counting India in the argument is dubious. Asserting that is how the rutabaga is referred to in India is misleading: while English is an official language in India, according to this, more than 99% of the population does not speak English as their primary language. That means "swede" is not the common name there because Indians are probably going to use the Hindi ( शलजम ) or other local name of it instead. Based upon that, how can it be claimed "swede" is more widely used? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The easy answer to your question "how can it be claimed "swede" is more widely used?" is geographically. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Geographically? That is a bit of a stretch; How do you mean geographically? Diverse? Distance? Location? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, most of those work. It is a wider slice of the globe and it is a more diverse group. I don't quite see how location would play as a "more widely used" factor. --Bejnar (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The name Swedish turnip is not used much, at least here in Britain. I see nothing wrong with "swede (root vegetable), which by very frequent Wikipedia convention says that it is called a swede and the bracketed part is a disambiguator: Wikipedia has countless articles with bracketed disambiguators at the ends of their names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move (again)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn by nominator. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Following the above no consensus discussion and at least one more hasty move after that discussion, I've proposed the following move:

Rutabaga → Brassica napobrassica

The rationale is as follows:

• Despite what some editors say above, both names Swede and Rutabaga appear to have widespread, yet geographically isolated usage. Let's not get into a discussion of which is more commonly used as we'll just end up rehashing what's above. Let's stick to the discussion on the merits of moving to the scientific name, a valid and also commonly used name for this species. To respond to the comments above when I hastily mentioned this earlier, the use of the scientific name won't change Lettuce or any other article. Ultimately, we'd like to have articles for both the species and the usage of the species.
• Precedent and guidelines: WP:NC (flora) stands firmly in the corner for scientific names for flora. Other articles, such as Cytisus scoparius have been moved to the scientific name after considerable discussion on the most common common (vernacular) name (it's a similar case; Br. Eng. knows that species as "broom" or "common broom" while Am. Eng., where it is invasive, knows it as "Scotch broom").
• It would seem that Rutabaga is unacceptable to Europeans and Americans don't recognize Swede. Rutabaga may be globally less commonly used, but Swede as an article title has the disadvantage of requiring a dabbed title - Swede (root vegetable).
• Other options: Alternatively, it would be possible, upon the advice of WP:NC (flora), to split the article in two: one, Brassica napobrassica discussing the botany of the species, botanical history, description, etc., and the other either titled at Swede (root vegetable) or Rutabaga to be hashed out later (I don't have a horse in that race so I don't care) covering the uses of the vegetable, history of the use, nutrition, etc.

So what say you? Move to species name, Split, Other? This still isn't resolved from the earlier discussion. I hope we can come to some kind of consensus. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is precedent for splitting: we have Carrot and Daucus carota. On the other hand, it seems more frequent that articles are solely at the common name: Solanum tuberosum redirects to Potato, Raphanus sativus redirects to Radish, and Apium graveolens redirects to Celery. As to the "Swede/Rutabaga" question, WP:ENGVAR states that for issues of national varieties of English, the original established version shouldn't be changed unless there are strong national ties to the topic. Since this article has been at Rutabaga since its creation in 2002 (barring the undiscussed and ultimately reversed move a few months ago), and it can hardly be argued that Commonwealth nations have any stronger tie to this vegetable than the US. Parsecboy (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to draw attention to the commonly accepted name if the disease which can be contracted, the Swede Midge. This implies that the word Swede should be used as diseases which affect the vegetable are named Swede .... --Lucy-marie (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but every American source I've looked at to find out more about the Swede Midge has told me that they are pests of rutabagas, not swedes.Yarjka (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Per point #2 of WP:NC (flora), a plant with economic and cultural significance (like this one) should have a page at its common name describing its history and use, and there should also be a second page at the scientific name for botanical descriptions. All the material in the current article covers its cultural significance -- that material should remain at the common name. Thus this article is not a good candidate for a move to Brassica napobrassica, nor is it currently a good candidate for a split -- I'd encourage interested editors to start a new article at Brassica napobrassica from scratch. I would not recommend re-opening the discussion of what common name this article should go under, but if the subject did get re-opened I'd cast my !vote for Rutabaga per WP:ENGVAR and WP:NAME#Controversial_names. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. I hadn't considered WP:ENGVAR and agree with you entirely, so I've withdrawn the nom and closed the discusion. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"They are rarely planted in Germany"

Swedes are readily available in season at supermarkets and greengrocers here in North Baden, at least, and I also very often see fields of them grown for animal feed. I would propose deletion of the sentence, "As a consequence, they are rarely planted in Germany" under History Frans Fowler (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done by Gandydancer 2 November 2009 --Frans Fowler (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

*Halloween*

Please do not remove the Halloween information without discussing it first. I read it here months ago, was doubtful because I grow swedes and it would be VERY difficult to hollow one out, and did some research. The information is accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. Unreferenced content can be removed at any time. Is the information verifiable? What reliable sources contain this content? It certainly doesn't warrant its own section and it's borderline trivia. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to lighten up a tad. The history section does not have a link either. If you feel you need to, please add a "citation needed" alert. I will see if I can find anything, in the meantime I will put the Halloween section back. Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not only that it's unreferenced. That's a major problem, but I believe you that it can fixed. My main concern is its importance to the article. Is the content necessary to the article? Would it be incomplete without this information? Or is it simple, unnecessary trivia? I lean toward the latter. At the very least, it shouldn't have it's own section. When you have a reference, then it can be added to a "uses" section. A lot of the info in the "Other" section should also be cut for the same concerns. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have moved the Halloween info to "Other". That should satisfy your concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review our policy on verifiability and also note the three-revert rule. I've also cleaned up the "Other" section to be more focused. My concerns are clearly stated above and are not restricted to the fact that it had its own section. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rkitko, I have several comments about your editing. You first deleted the Halloween info which has been a part of the article for a long, long time, so we must assume that other editors have not found it problematic. You however find it problematic because it is not referrenced. And yet when I go to your user page and find that you state that you have done major work on the Greystone Psych Hospt, I find NOT ONE REERRENCE. Not one in the entire article. By your own suggestions, it ALL should be removed. Furthermore, I note when I look at the history of that article you removed the "Interesting Notes" (I forget the actual title) section stating that you planned to work it into the article at a later date. That was some months ago and it is still missing. I would hope that you can understand that it appears that you just don't like that sort of information in a wiki article. You need to understand that some people do.

Also, you have refered me to the Wiki guidelines re "trivia"--please read them once again since they DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

As you know, wiki editors must attempt to work with others and not insist that others do all the giving while they do all the taking. I attempted to satisfy your concerns by removing a section from the "Other" section and moving the Halloween info to that section. And what do you do, but remove that entire section as well! And then threaten me with the wiki 3 revert rule to boot.

It is late but I will get back to this tomorrow. Gandydancer (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The length of time unreferenced material has been in an article has no bearings on whether or not it can be removed if one is concerned about it. Regarding trivia, you'll notice the guideline cites WP:NOT in that some trivia may not belong for those reasons. Surely you can see how "popular culture" references to the rutabaga like the Frank Zappa song info that I removed from the "Other" section do not belong in an encyclopedic article. And a section title like "Other" isn't descriptive and held indiscriminate information not entirely relevant to our article.

And since you brought it out, regarding Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, I wrote that before I was aware of the <ref></ref> tags for inline citations. Inline citations like that are not required, though are helpful. All of my references for that article are contained at the bottom in either the references or external links sections. I never promised to re-integrate the "interesting notes" material myself; I just moved it to the talk page since it was gathering unnecessary info.

May I make a suggestion? Instead of expending the energy on discussing this, why don't we search for a reliable source? I'll make the first stab at it and post anything I find here. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I found one peer-reviewed article that mentioned it tangentially, but it didn't say much. There's a book, [1] that in the google books preview said "They became popular Halloween decorations in Scotland and Ireland several hundred ..." but that text doesn't appear in the book preview. Can you find any better? --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rkitko, some comments:

> "The length of time unreferenced material has been in an article has no bearings on whether or not it can be removed if one is concerned about it."

While true, it is also true that it would appear that of the many people that have been involved with this article, you are the ONLY ONE that suddenly finds a problem with ALL of the trivia section. This suggests that you feel that you somehow are more skilled and knowledgeable than the MANY people that have read it. And you removed it without discussion. That IS a problem.

> "Surely you can see how "popular culture" references to the rutabaga like the Frank Zappa song info that I removed from the "Other" section do not belong in an encyclopedic article. And a section title like "Other" isn't descriptive and held indiscriminate information not entirely relevant to our article."

Please quit setting up straw men. I have made no mention of either of these issues.

FROM THE WIKI GUIDELINES ON "TRIVIA"

What this guideline is not

There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

I am working on the Halloween section and will insert it when I am done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did it! I have added the Halloween section. I am aware that the refs do not look just right, but I don't know how to do it properly...yet. I will try to learn that and if I don't get it, I will ask for help. I also need to make some words "clickable", and will learn how to do that as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you really should read our reliable source guideline. Blogs are not reliable sources. Neither are satirical websites. The information you added was not relevant to the content of this article. Halloween and Jack-o'-lanterns are discussed elsewhere - we don't need to double up on that. We just need to discuss how this plant fits into those other concepts without explaining those concepts thoroughly. --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I hardly know what to say. I spent many hours working on the Halloween section and just like that you have removed the entire entry because you do not feel it is relevant. I am both angry and saddened. I post on several news sites and frequently defend wikipedia when people claim that they have attempted to edit but to no avail.

Your issues:

"Blogs/"satirical websites" are not reliable..." What, I need to find peer reviewed articles to prove that rutabagas are now, and have in the past, been used as lanterns? I used several (If I remember correctly) news articles regarding present use of carved turnip heads. Do we need to suspect that perhaps they are bogus?

"...not relevant to the content/are discussed elsewhere" Everything I wrote is relevant and I hardly explained any of "those old concepts thoroughly". I did, however, need to touch on them as background for the more recent practice of carving turnips.

"We don't need to double up on that..." In the first place, I wish you would quit using "we". You represent yourself here, not Wikipedia. I have not doubled up on anything. If anyone looked at the rutabaga article they may very well find it interesting that they were, in fact, the first Jack O Lanterns.Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, let's go through your added content point by point. My rebuttals will be in bold at the end of each paragraph.

The modern traditions of Halloween have roots in a Celtic holiday called Samhain, which was celebrated throughout Western Europe, and especially Ireland, to mark the end of the summer and the final fall harvest. It was believed that this day was the beginning of the "dark season", and that at that time the door to the Otherworld was opened, allowing spirits to roam the Earth. To combat the threat, ancient Celts set bonfires across the land - fire being a common way to ward off evil spirits. While I understand the desire to preface an explanation of the swede's relationship to Halloween, this is excessive and unnecessary with respect to the article's topic, which is the vegetable. Such explanation would be good on the individual articles about Halloween.

The practice continued throughout the region even after Christianity took hold in the Middle Ages and the festival was renamed All Hallows Eve. The bonfires were replaced with hollowed out "turnips", the common name for rutabaga in Ireland, Scotland and Northern England. Rowdy bands of children (known as "guisers" in English speaking countries, from the English word, disguise) prowled the streets in hideous masks. The youngsters also carried carved turnips (rutabagas) known in Scotland as "tumshie heads". Again, excessive. And the reference is not a reliable source. Far from it. Anyone can set up a tripod account and host a website there. It would only be an acceptable reliable source if it was written by a known expert in the field.

Turnip carving is believed to be based on an old Irish legend of a blacksmith named Jack who mortgaged his soul to the demons of the underworld. Jack found his way through the netherworld by hoisting a large hollowed turnip (rutabaga) containing a glowing coal. Again, the mythology is somewhat irrelevant to this article. Reworded slightly, I could see this being reinstated, but not in its own section. This is one of the only decent references.

In modern times All Hallows Eve has become known as Halloween and the carved turnips (swedes, rutabagas, etc.) are more often simply put in the window or on the doorstep of the house. Since their purpose is to ward off evil spirits, they are carved to look as sinister and threatening as possible. The first and second references are blogs, so not reliable. The last is from a news site, but states no author and doesn't mention if it was actually published in the newspaper or if its simply a blog posting. Further, the last reference doesn't explicitly support any of the statements you made in that paragraph.

As an encyclopedia, we have standards for inclusion of content, one of which is proper references. In order to defend Wikipedia, we need to be reliable. Anyone can edit, but if their edits are inane, push particular points of view, or add information that's unsourced, it can and should be removed.

If you want to expand a bit on the information regarding this vegetable's use as a lantern, you'll need to find better references. Historical reviews would be good. Academic books or publications (yes, peer reviewed if available) are best. The history.com one you had wasn't a bad one, but it itself had no references. I found a single peer-reviewed source (now in the article under uses) that tangentially mentioned its use during Halloween. If you can find more, that'd be great! It's still highly recommended that you read through our guidelines and policies that discuss which kinds of sources are best: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SECONDARY have all the pertinent information. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that I could improve my references, however I have read my suggested entry of Halloween information and I do not see where I could cut it down. The vegetable pumpkin of course has a Halloween section and I see no reason that rutabaga should not as well. When I looked up rutabaga over a year ago, when the Halloween information was still in the article, I really enjoyed learning something that was new to me. But I just can not put more energy into my attempt to get the Halloween information here only to have it deleted or cut to only a sentence or two. I also enjoyed the now deleted information on rutabaga curling and would like to see it returned. But if my experience with a Halloween section has not taught me something, I don't know what would.Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not meant to contain indiscriminate listings of information. Put plainly, the only necessary information is the rutabaga's relationship and use in Halloween; we don't need a long narrative describing the history of Halloween and other, unrelated practices (e.g. your entire first paragraph and a sentence or two from the second). Yes, the references must be improved. Specifically, there's a lot of confusion over which vegetable, given the ambiguous common names used, is being referred to in the cited references. And in order for the curling information to return, we'd need to find a reliable source independent of the website advertising the event. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• [QUOTE] the only necessary information is the rutabaga's relationship and use in Halloween; we don't need a long narrative describing the history of Halloween and other, unrelated practices[/QUOTE] And yet you have no objection to:

...other cyanoglucoside-containing foods (including cassava, maize, bamboo shoots, sweet potatoes, and lima beans) release cyanide, which is subsequently detoxified into thiocyanate. Thiocyanate inhibits thyroid iodide transport and, at high doses, competes with iodide in the organification process within thyroid tissue. Goitres may develop when there is a dietary imbalance of thiocyanate-containing food in excess of iodine consumption and it is possible for these compounds to contribute to hypothyroidism.Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Am adding some comments on the "Halloween" section. Must say I get the impression that Rhitko's feeling it was all "unnecessary trivia", was an extremely biased and narrow viewpoint. If one is looking for information on the rutabaga I don't know why one would ever think of looking up 'Halloween' for more information as one might do if looking up info on the pumpkin. Most people are probably not aware of this tie between halloween carving and the rutabaga as they would be for the pumpkin. My mind goes automatically to thinking of two children writing a report for school on the rutabega and the teacher commenting "Well Johnny you had a good report however Jason's was more thorough." Really do think you should have left the Halloween section in, I want my dictionary to err on the side of more information, not less. If the info is there, I have the choice of scanning it or skipping it, leaving it out leaves me with no choice. Swampiris (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I removed the information in the first place was because it was unsourced and any unsourced information can be removed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And please remember to assume good faith when discussing others' actions. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Rkitko, some comments:

You now state that you removed the Halloween section because it was unreferenced. However, when you removed it you stated, "My concern is not only that it's unreferenced. That's a major problem, but I believe you that it can be fixed. My main concern is its importance to the article. Is the content necessary to the article? Would it be incomplete without this information? Or is it simple, unnecessary trivia? I lean toward the latter."

I did try to find references, however you refused to accept all but one.

Furthermore, note that the entire History section was, and remains, unreferenced. Same for the Consumption section.

Also, as you very well know, if every unsourced section of Wikipedia were deleted, a large part of Wikipedia would disappear. For that reason one often sees the "citation needed" notation. If we were speaking of a person here, or a controversial subject, by all means an acceptable source is an absolute MUST, and anything else should immediately be removed. But we are, after all, speaking of rutabagas here. There will be no terrible damage done if you do not immediately have a reference that you approve of on whether or not they were used as lanterns at Halloween. Certainly a "ciation needed" notation would have been the appropriate move.

You said to Swampiris that we must assume good faith, however it seems to me that you are holding me to a ridiculously high standard. Just as a "for instance" you suggest,"in order for the curling information to return, we'd need to find a reliable source independent of the website advertising the event", while even the rutabaga curling event article at this site has only their website as a reference.Gandydancer (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rkitko, I am curious why you felt it necessary to remind me that Wiki is not a dictionary. I stand corrected, it is an Encyclopedia, however this, from my viewpoint, would support leaving in more information rather than less. Per the following website-- http://www.reference.com/browse/encyclopedia "Basically an encyclopedia differs from a dictionary in that a dictionary is fundamentally devoted to words and an encyclopedia offers information on various subjects, with data on and discussion of each subject identified".Swampiris (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Swampiris, do you ever do any editing? I put a lot of work into my initial post for the Halloween connection, but I feel that I must accept Rkitko's suggestion that it may have been too much information. I have looked at it in an attempt to cut it down some, but have been unable to figure out how to do it and still show the historical evidence. If you have any ideas for a re-write it would be appreciated. If you're interested you could write it here on the discussion page. Thanks for your interest!Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here is how it appeared when I added it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutabaga&diff=next&oldid=323381841 Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps this page would be better: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutabaga&diff=next&oldid=323891320 I was actually working on making some of the words "clickable" and planned next to work on the refs when Rkitko deleted it. Using this page one could click the other articles related to Halloween to get a better idea of what's needed in this one and what may be excessive. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, I don't feel qualified as an editor, I will toss out a couple thoughts. Perhaps you could put this under "History" or "Uses". (I prefer history) and start by establishing the relationship of what you are adding. For example: There was a time when rutabagas were carved much as we carve pumpkins today. The roots of this practice go back to a Celtic holiday called---(here continue with your words) Towards the end, you could shorten to "Rowdy bands of children prowled the streets in hideous masks carrying carved ---etc. The part of the 'guisers', though fascinating might not actually be necessary.Good luck.Swampiris (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Swampiris. What do you think of this:

At one time rutabagas were carved much like pumpkins are carved today. The roots of this practice go back to a Celtic holiday called Samhain, which was celebrated throughout Western Europe and especially Ireland, to mark the end of the summer and the final fall harvest. It was believed that this day was the beginning of the "dark season", and that at that time the door to the Otherworld was opened, allowing spirits to roam the Earth. To combat the threat, ancient Celts set bonfires across the land - fire being a common way to ward off evil spirits. [6] [7]

The practice continued throughout the region even after Christianity took hold in the Middle Ages and the festival was renamed All Hallows Eve. The bonfires were replaced with hollowed out "turnips", the common name for rutabaga in Ireland, Scotland and Northern England, with a glowing coal placed inside. Rowdy bands of children prowled the streets wearing hideous masks and carrying carved turnips (rutabagas) known in Scotland as "tumshie heads".[8]

Turnip carving is believed to be based on an old Irish legend of a blacksmith named Jack who mortgaged his soul to the demons of the underworld. Jack found his way through the netherworld by hoisting a large hollowed turnip (rutabaga) containing a glowing coal. [9]

In modern times All Hallows Eve has become known as Halloween and the carved turnips (swedes, rutabagas, etc.) are more often simply put in the window or on the doorstep of the house. Since their purpose is to ward off evil spirits, they are carved to look as sinister and threatening as possible. [10] [11] [12]

I have not yet checked my refs, but will try to improve them. Gandydancer (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest finding reliable sources first, then working on a summary. I still object to nearly half of the information above. For instance, why is it relevant to mention what was believed (dark season, otherworld, what the Celts did to "combat the threat") in the first paragraph? Why do we need to include the name transition to All Hallows Eve? I'm still skeptical of the transition here from bonfires to coal-bearing turnips. I'm sure you've read Pumpkin#Halloween, and I note that at least one historian finds no mention of vegetable lanterns in older literature. Now what he meant by lantern, I'm not sure. This is why we need reliable sources, which you have not provided yet and which I have been unable to locate. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Rkitko, please read this information that you feel is important to the article and that the article would not be complete without:

Phytochemistry Swede and other cyanoglucoside-containing foods (including cassava, maize, bamboo shoots, sweet potatoes, and lima beans) release cyanide, which is subsequently detoxified into thiocyanate. Thiocyanate inhibits thyroid iodide transport and, at high doses, competes with iodide in the organification process within thyroid tissue. Goitres may develop when there is a dietary imbalance of thiocyanate-containing food in excess of iodine consumption and it is possible for these compounds to contribute to hypothyroidism.[7][8][9][10] Yet, there have been no reports of ill effects in humans from the consumption of glucosinolates from normal amounts of Brassica vegetables. Glucosinolate content in Brassica vegetables is estimated to be around one percent of dry matter.[11]

As far as I'm concerned, none of this information is important to the article. Note that you get into information about goitres and iodide and cassava etc., and cyanide, and thiocyanate, and on and on. And then, finally after I noted that I could find NO study that suggests rutabaga should be seen as a danger, you finally added: "Yet, there have been no reports of ill effects...".

But, I am willing to admit that perhaps some of those that read Wikipedia may find it interesting and I did not delete it.

Now, as for your complaints that my Halloween section is not referenced well, as an administrater you must be very well aware that if I were to go and delete every word from Wikipedia that was not well referenced or even referenced at all, a huge part of Wikipedia would immediately disapear. Clearly you are using your "not a reliable source" as a weapon to get your way over the wishes of others. And again, remember that we are talking about RUTABAGAS here, rutabagas - even the word rutabaga is not even familiar to most of our friends in Europe, or Florida either as far as that goes. It is very unlikely that I am going to find peer reviewed information on rutabaga lanterns. Obviously.

Most people living in the UK and Ireland are very familiar with turnip lanterns. To them to suggest that I must find scholarly papers to prove that turnips are now, and have in the past been used at Halloween, would be the same as expecting me to find scholarly papers to prove that pumpkins are hollowed out at Halloween. Clearly, if none of the news articles or "blogs" that I expect to use as my references are not acceptable to you, I never will be able to put "the halloween connection" into the rutabaga article of Wikipedia.

Since you seem unwilling to accept the Wikipedia advise that one must not expect to see their viewpoint rule, I will look for negotiation advise. I certainly would appreciate input from Swampiris and anyone else that reads this for their viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A fundamental difference: I removed information that wasn't sourced and that I took time to search for accordingly. You then propose a new section with references not up to this encyclopedia's standards. WP:RS is not a weapon, it's a guideline to keep our articles verifiable. Please assume good faith. I want to improve the article, as I have by adding references and the botanical history section. Please read WP:RS, it does not restrict us to peer-reviewed journals. Respected history books and other academic books would work as well. If, by your own admission, you're unable to locate reliable sources, why should this info be included? What's wrong with what you currently have in the article? I have no objection now to the brief mention in Rutabaga#Activities involving rutabagas, though I think the section title could use a tweak. And I'm still not sure it requires its own section. As for getting other opinions, please feel free to do so. WP:3O is a good place to start. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading through this section and reviewing the history, my opinion is that the whole previous Halloween section was not appropriate. The section had way to much information that was not applicable to understanding rutabagas. The level of information in the section belongs in a specific article on Halloween. The current one line is appropriate. It provides a reliably sourced addition that does provide information about little known use of the rutabaga. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion GB fan. I have not done extensive editing and have much to learn. Actually I expected that a more experienced Wikipedia editor would also point out Wikipedia guidelines regarding my editing rather than just offer a personal opinion. Also, I can not find information about you from your user page - could you give me a link for that?

You state that you do not feel anything more than one line is appropriate because that information "was not applicable to understanding rutagagas". However, please see the Wikipedia article for "apple" and note the extensive inclusion of cultural aspects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know of any policies or guidelines that support one side of the argument or the other so I offered my opinion. I am not sure what kind of information you need about me to help answer this question. Here is a link to my contributions to wikipedia, talk page (archives of old talk at top), [failed RFA (under old username}] and count of all my edits. If you think you need additional info, let me know specifically what you want to know. As far as Apple, the fact what information is in it has nothing to do with this article, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi GB fan, Again, thanks for your input. First, I thought that perhaps you have a user page similar to Rkitko, who has an excellent one. I did take a long look at the link you provided and it seems to me that it is more addressed at the issue of whether or not a given topic deserves a page at all. My suggestion about the apple article seemed relevant to me as it seems to suggest that mythological information can be important when certain information is being presented. And note that some explanation of ancient belief systems was necessary to tie the apple into the information, though it may be contained elsewhere in Wikipedia. It seemed to me that I faced this same challenge as I attempted to tie the ancient practice of turnip lanterns into the information presented. Furthermore, as you know often an article will contain a brief section of information that is contained in related articles that contain a more lengthly version. Rkitko has done some excellent work on the article that I'm sure many may be interested in. However, I have as well and I think that it should be included.Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, I do not see any need for all the additional information in the article. It does not help to understand what we are discussing in this article, Rutabagas. It helps understand halloween or Jack-O-Lanterns and that is where I think that information belongs with links to those articles. As far as the otherstuff, yes it does mostly talk about articles themselves rather than content of articles, but it still applies. Just because one article has content about a subject doesn't mean any other article needs content about that or similar subjects. I can see a couple of different scenarios. It could be that it is more important in that article than it is in the other one, it could mean that it was placed in the article and doesn't really belong there also. It should be evaluated based on the individual article not comparing one article to another. This is my approach to evaluating articles, each one is independent and looked at without regard to any other article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I had hoped for more input by now, but that has not happened. I am not satisfied but I will remove my contribution. I would like to suggest that GB fan put up a user page as Rkitko has done. Neither Rkitko nor GB fan has been able to offer Wikipedia guidelines that fit this situation, rather it rests on their opinion, especially that of GB fan, and I actually know nothing about GB fan. It has been an interesting learning experience. Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I readded the information. It is good information that belongs in the article. Your edit summary is inaccurate, no admin decided that the information didn't belong and as far as I can tell no one has said the information doesn't belong. Also what additional information do you need to know about me to evaluate my opinions and why do you need to know more information about me to evaluate my opinions? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well I hardly know where to start. Look at the length of this thing...about a rutabaga!...I just don't know what else I can say. I was not trying to win a point. I really did feel that my addition was a valuable bit of info. I LOVE Wikipedia! Last night I watched "Seabisquit" on PBS (which I loved!) and afterwards I looked it up on wikipedia. What a superb article! Read it--it's pure poetry and yet informative as well. Or as I mentioned. look at "apple", or I will add, look at pomegranate. I shudder to think what would happen if someone would go through those articles and delete everything that did not have a peer reviewed or scholarly reference or seemed important to them. Also, that you would even suggest that "maybe that information doesn't belong there" suggests to me that we are far, far apart in what we would like to see in wikipedia.

I spent a lot of time trying to find info on rutabaga lanterns and called a friend in Ireland. She had no idea what I was talking about until we finally figured out that we were talking about "turnips" - she had never heard the word rutabaga! She said, of course everybody in Ireland and the UK knows about turnip lanterns, and a few people still carve them today. So, it bothers me that we here in the US feel it deserves no more than one line in wikipedia, if that. I love it when I broaden my knowledge and understanding beyond the tiny little part of the world that I have grown up and lived in.

When I asked for input from an admin I assumed that they would actually read the comments on this discussion. I can only guess that you GB fan have not read them or you would know that Rkitko has refused to accept my references (other than one). When you state ,the current one line is appropriate, it provides a reliably sourced addition that does provide information about little known use of the rutabaga, I assumed that you meant Rkitko's one line, which apparently has "reliably sources". On the other hand, if you DO feel that my ref is adequate, why did you not address this? If you actually read this debate you would be aware that I felt that Rkitko has demanded rutabaga lantern references to be comparable to those that one might well expect to find necessary for a medical condition. He refused to accept the BBC article because it had no author. As I believe I said earlier, you'd think we were talking about some horrible disease here that would do terrible harm if my ref was not just perfect. It's rutabagas! At this point I actually don't feel we are talking about just rutabagas at all. I really do think that if the truth be known we are talking about egos here. I do wish that you and Rkitko would come to some sort of decision about appropriate references for..rutabagas. Many people have been telling me that Wikipedia is no longer of, for, and by the people. I'm not ready to go so far as to say that yet, but I am heading in that direction. Sorry, this has turned into somewhat of a rant. Tomorrow I will read it and perhaps regret what I have said, or not. Gandydancer (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gandydancer: To become and remain a reliable source of information itself, editors of Wikipedia must rely on reliable sources. Guidelines for what sources can be considered reliable have been created. We must work within those guidelines. I have never objected to the BBC article. Also, it's a good idea to keep in mind that this is a collaborative effort. If we disagree on something, we discuss, bring forth supporting information, and develop a consensus. People are able to change their minds. I initially regarded this as unnecessary trivia. You've changed my mind! I even went so far as to find a reference for the mention in the preparation and uses section. I don't see where the problem is, then. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding? How can we clear this up? And again, a reminder, please assume good faith. Instead of "you would know that Rkitko has refused to accept my references (other than one)," it would be more appropriate to say that I thought the references provided did not meet Wikipedia's standards and I thoroughly explained myself.

A few points I'd also like to hit on here: 1) I think GB fan has gone above and beyond what a typical third opinion normally receives, so thank you for your extensive input. 2) No one is required to have as extensive a user page as I do; I identify myself to make others aware of my biases (even though I may not be aware of them). Others do not feel so comfortable revealing their identities for multiple reasons. And 3) Administrators have no special control over content. We're just janitors with a handful of privileges (WP:NOBIGDEAL). All GB fan was providing was an impartial third opinion, not a binding resolution or administrator decision. I hope that clears a few things up. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gandydancer: I am sorry I didn't address your concerns. The only reason I came here was because you asked for a third opinion. I had no personal opinion one way or the other about the article prior to coming, I just came here to try to help. At this point it doesn't appear my involvement has helped clear this up. You seem to be more upset now then when I got here and for that, I apologize. Just for the record, I did did read the entire debate before I posted anything to this page. I also reviewed the history of the article and looked at different versions of the Halloween information to see if there was any other versions that were appropriate. After doing that I developed my opinion of the situation and stated it. Also I am not an administrator, just an editor like you, only with more experience here on wikipedia. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 04:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• A short reply for now and I will write more later. First, thanks to both of you for your comments! To clear a few things up: I did think GB fan was an admin and that's why I felt he/she should have a user page. And about the BBC article - I have felt that I needed to get away from this debate for a time and wait to see if anyone else had anything to add. I had forgotten that I used that BBC article, I think I may have "borrowed" it from the Halloween page, I thought I was still using the article that I had used that did not have an author. Gandydancer (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Consumption section

I feel that this needs to be removed. I googled it and found that EVERY REFERENCE TO HYPOTHYROIDISM WAS BASED ON THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! Talk about mis-information! Actually it should be obvious since corn is listed as well, and corn is a staple diet of many countries. The second paragraph in this section should go as well. Check the ref and you will see what I mean.Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes that happens. We get linked to or copied a lot. Take care in finding out who generated the information, though, by searching the primary literature. Even limiting your search to Google Scholar or Google Books will help. In this case, the first paragraph is entirely verifiable and I've added another reference and moved two inline that were meant for that section. I agree with you on the second paragraph; I wasn't able to verify the information, so I've removed it. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why are so many food plants cyanogenic?

Jones DA.

Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611, USA.

A disproportionately large number of the most important human food plants is cyanogenic. The accumulated research of numerous people working in several different disciplines now allows a tenable explanation for this observation. Cyanogenesis by plants is not only a surprisingly effective chemical defence against casual herbivores, but it is also easily overcome by careful pre-ingestion food processing, this latter skill being almost exclusive to humans. Moreover, humans have the physiological ability to detoxify cyanide satisfactorily, given an adequate protein diet. It appears that early in the domestication of crop plants the cyanogenic species would have been relatively free of pests and competitive herbivores, as well as having good nutritional qualities, and thus ideal candidates for cultivation by the first farmers.

This information suggests that swede/rutabaga should no more be singled out than corn. If this article (rutabaga) carries this information, corn and sweet potatoes should as well. So by your reasoning you should edit those vegetables. Do note, however, that beans do carry this information since they actually do need to be processed (cooked) before ingesting. I will wait a few days for more input, and then I will delete this section if needed.Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't base your judgment on the article's abstract alone. If you had access to the full article, you could read that it confirms swedes/rutabagas contain cyanide compounds.

By my reasoning? What reasoning is that? I choose what I invest my time in and I if I decide not to add this info and references to other articles, that says nothing of the validity of the information here and its relevance to this article. Perhaps if you read the abstract for the first reference in the list, [2], you'd understand what the paragraph is saying. The paragraph is relevant and well-referenced, so it shouldn't be deleted. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The question is not as to whether or not they contain cyanide compounds since many plants do. The quesstion is do they contain amounts large enough to be harmful. It is well known that unprepared cassava, apricot pits, and uncooked beans are dangerous. But I've never heard that corn, sweet potatoes, or rutabagas are. Could you please make that information available so that I can read it for myself. As I have said, when I google for it the only sources that come up are this wikipedia article.Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have deleted the Comsumption section. No information has been presented that shows rutabaga to be a dangerous food. Please see:

http://www.tekno.dk/pdf/projekter/STOA-human-health/brussels_may08_williamson.pdf

Note: "Brassica vegetables in the diet are not toxic or dangerous in any way; infact, increased consumption is desirable."

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitrogen

Note: Rutabaga is included in a list of MANY foods identified as "lightly goitrogenic". Also note that cooking destroys the goitrogens.

Allso see:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/440

Note: Cooking destroys this enzyme and thus negates its goitrogenic potency Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph may have been a bit misleading, but that's no reason to delete. That's reason to rewrite. I have added a reference and retitled it. We're really just talking about phytochemistry here and not whether or not the vegetable is dangerous to consume (that was my poor choice of title, I believe). Just because it's not dangerous doesn't mean it warrants mention in the article. The vegetable contains these chemicals as secondary metabolites, they're written about frequently in relation to consumption in reliable sources, and good articles on the vegetables would certainly include sections on what phytochemicals the plant produces. Is the paragraph more acceptable now? Rkitko ^(talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The paragraph was more than "a bit misleading", it was incorrect. Furthermore, when one looks at the long list of goitrogenic foods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitrogen and notes that none of the other brassica articles contain similar information, it suggests to me that the rutabaga should not contain this information either.Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that trying to list this information on the species page for all of the plants with this compound is problematic (if the list is really as long as we've seen so far). Perhaps it could be discussed at Cyanoglucoside? Kingdon (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a "Yellow Turnip"

Given that the majority of English speakers outside the US have never even heard of the term "Rutabaga" before, I suggest that this article should be renamed "Yellow Turnip" as from the disambig page, this would seem to be the terminology that is the most widespread ("Yellow Turnip" is even used in both the US, the UK, and even in specific parts of England - the southern English "Swede" should also be avoided as the white turnips are sometimes called "Swedes" in certain parts of the world like Scotland and Ireland). The current turnip article should be renamed "White Turnip". "Yellow Turnip" and "White Turnip" articles would be the clearest way of making the distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.129.1.42 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It also seems to me that even in the US not everyone has heard of a "rutabaga" either!: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.129.1.42 (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Such proposals are perennial. We have naming conventions that guide us in these decisions. The most recent discussions regarding moving the pages ended in no consensus to move. See the above sections #Requested move and #Proposed move (again). Rkitko ^(talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of previous move attempts. They're going to keep being perennial if the article is named in a way that is understood in the US only and nowhere else. I am not suggesting the same name that was suggested previously. 164.129.1.42 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and WP:NAME#Considering name changes are the relevant guidelines. The page was established at the title Rutabaga and there clearly isn't consensus to move it as the recent discussions reveal. I'd suggest waiting a while before beginning a new move discussion and preparing a pretty solid move request that will persuade others. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Yellow Turnip" does not show up in: [4] and:[5]. "Yellow Turnip" is only one form of this crop, and does not represent all Rutabaga, and thus should not be the name of the article; More details at [6].Hardyplants (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So two specific US books don't have it in the title, but searching for "yellow turnip" does provide many Google Books results in other books. You may have a point about a small minority of them not being yellow, so in that case either "Swedish Turnip" or the Latin name is acceptable as an article name - "Rutabaga" is not.

It does seem obvious to me that the article should be moved to the Latin name with redirects for all the common names. This is standard practice elsewhere in Wikipedia, and avoids all the pointless arguments about which regional common name is 'right'. Where I grew up in North Staffordshire, England we called them turnips, but swede is the standard UK term. Rutabaga is completely unknown here. --Ef80 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then you must just be stupid, as the poster above said: "We can't build an encyclopedia on your lack of knowledge. The fact that you have never heard of something doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and nowhere in our naming conventions can I find any language that says anything like "Wikipedia articles should use names that are part of Somali123's vocabulary." So your comment simply isn't relevant to this discussion. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC) OK, kidding aside - When I did the research for the section I wanted to include (Halloween - see discussion above) it was difficult to not only research but to write (which turned out to be moot anyway since it was not included in the article). I am from the US and had no idea that a rutagaga was not necessarily...well a rutabaga, and so I asked an Irish friend about it. She is an extremely bright and "worldly" person; a somewhat important person in the art world in Ireland, and she had never heard the term rutabaga. But what, do we need to wait for a peer reviewed article to change the name? Rkitko, an editor who watches this article, has also suggested the name change to the Latin. As far as I'm concerned, he should just go ahead and do it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, if it is not quite that simple, perhaps we can again ask for input. And perhaps invite "RutabagaGate"? (see the global warming discussion here re "ClimateGate" to understand what I'm getting at. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The History of the Swede

This may help if anyone can access the full article.

   * The Coming of the Swede to Great Britain: An Obscure Chapter in Farming History
   * Nigel Harvey
   * Agricultural History, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 286-288
     (article consists of 3 pages)
   * Published by: Agricultural History Society
   * Stable URL: [7]

simonthebold (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does! Thanks for the link. I'll see if I can incorporate any of the info. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Text support for claim of Mediterranean origin?

One site asserts that the earliest written record of rutabagas is in the Mediterranean region. (The site is: http://www.vegparadise.com/highestperch4.html ) The article further asserts that the rutabagas were first served to livestock, rather than consumed by people.

Does anyone know of any text that supports these assertions? Dogru144 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be accurate. The botanist Gaspard Bauhin noted its presence in Sweden in 1620. That, as far as I know and several references have said, is the earliest written record. The link hardly appears to be a reliable source, so I'd shy away from trusting its content. Any info on its early cultivation must be very careful sourced and researched, as a great deal of confusion exists on the historical naming of this vegetable: it is and has been frequently called the swede, turnip (not to be confused with turnips), cabbage-turnip or turnip-cabbage, which frequently also referred to kohlrabi... Early writers on its cultivation and use could say something about a turnip-cabbage and mean another vegetable entirely. Then those early writings were misinterpreted and became memes in common use in modern descriptions, which makes it all the more difficult to tease apart and get it right! I'm slowly realizing I'll need to re-write the section on history with more ambiguity, explaining why its history is ambiguous. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Bagge can mean ram in Swedish but it can also mean beetle. (And in itself "bagge" is etymologically related to the english "bug"). "Bagge" is seldom used by itself but is often used as a word-ending of different beetle-species: "skalbagge", "snytbagge", "bladbagge", "myrbagge". So the name basically means "root beetle". (Probably because the shape resembles a beetle) 83.255.33.94 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source coming to this conclusion. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia does not welcome original research: Wikipedia:No original research. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source for the etymology in the article. It is clearly original research, so I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(from dialectal Swedish rotabagge, literally, "root ram")

Bang kuang

I deleted an entry that mentioned this Asian vegetable and it accidently processed before my note was added. I believe that the editor has rutabaga confused with turnip--not surprising since so many do call them by that name. I apologize to the IP editor. Gandydancer (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

rutabaga in Canada

Turnips and Rutabagas are different. In Canada, we do not call rutabagas turnips. We recognize them as different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.176.112 (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

See this page, mate: Turnip (terminology) --Shandris^{the azylean} 12:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Turnip is what they've always been referred to as in Atlantic Canada. Turnips(the other one) are referred to as white turnips when they show up for sale.71.7.204.43 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit, I'm biased. I grew up in Atlantic Canada and we always called them turnips. When we heard the word 'rutabaga' we thought it was some funny American thing. I also heard 'neeps'. The large chain grocery stores though are now calling them rutabaga in Canada, so that's probably going to lose to commercialized standards.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology cleanup

I have made several copy edits to this section to remove hard to cite claims. There are several sections that need clarification, and I have tagged them appropriately. If someone from these regions can supply the names of dictionaries of these English dialects so we can properly cite these, it would be greatly appreciated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This article states: "The term swede is used instead of rutabaga in many Commonwealth Nations, including England, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand. The name turnip is also used in parts of Northern and Midland England, the Westcountry (particularly Cornwall), Ireland, Manitoba, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. In Scots, it is known as turnip, tumshie or neep (from Old English næp, Latin napus).[2] Some areas of south east Scotland, such as Berwickshire and Roxburghshire, still use the term baigie, possibly a derivative of the original Swedish rutabaga.[3] The term turnip is also utilized in southern English usage.[where?][2][4] Some will also refer to both types as just turnip (the word is also derived from næp).[who?][4] In North-East England, turnips and swedes are colloquially called snadgers, snaggers (archaic) or narkies.[citation needed]" I heard there was a small town 23 miles from biggleswade where they called them a nepfruit - geez, who cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"In North-East England, turnips and swedes are colloquially called snadgers, snaggers (archaic) or narkies.[citation needed]" Never in my hearing and I grew up in Durham, and with strong family ties to Northumberland. If it's a North Eastern usage it's a localized one, not general. "Some areas of south east Scotland, such as Berwickshire and Roxburghshire, still use the term baigie" I've heard baigie used at least as far south as South-West Durham.

82.11.64.250 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)