Talk:Rutabaga/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Halloween

Hope springs eternal. I believe that I was jerked around and bullied in 2009 when I attempted to enter this information. I won't repeat all the reasons that an editor said he would not allow this information, they are there for anyone that wishes to read them. I felt then, and I feel now that this is appropriate and that it improves this article. If turnips were the first Jack-O-Lanterns, that is notable and the small amount of information I have added is not too much. I will again check the references I used and improve them if possible, however I will not delete this information because the refs are not as good as I wish I could find. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your additions were mostly about the holiday and had nearly no relevance to the subject of this article. I do not think a discussion on other activities or a prolonged description of what Halloween is useful or necessary in this article. I object to many of the references you used (a personal tripod.com website is not a WP:RS). Further, it's still not clear to me that when a reference you cite claims a "turnip" was used in this capacity that they meant this taxon, the rutabaga.

Also, I'm sorry you perceive our earlier discussions as being "jerked around and bullied" when in fact all I was doing was applying the standards, policies, and guidelines of the encyclopedia to your additions. And actual willful refusal to abide by our reliable sources guidelines jerks around the integrity of the encyclopedia. I would appreciate it if we could discuss further edits here first so we can throw out bad references and work through the turnip/rutabaga distinction before editing the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible to explain that turnips were the first jack-o-lanterns without a brief history. It is not "prolonged" and directly explains the reasons that the fires used to ward off spirits in the very early times later were the coals in the turnip lanterns. If you still, after all this time, have not accepted that in many parts of Europe rutabagas are called turnips, please do some reading. As for my references, please remember that I commented on your psychiatric hospital article that has a great deal of information that is not referenced (and is, in my opinion, an excellent article and a good addition to our encyclopedia). Please do not remove my edit and create an edit war. If you are not happy with any information you certainly are entitled to put citation needed tags and discuss further. Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the text you modified, with portions striked out that I think are entirely unnecessary to explain their use (comments in italics and additions in bold):

Since early times (when?), people living in Ireland and Scotland have carved turnips and used them as lanterns to ward off harmful spirits. They are still popular throughout Britain and Ireland today at Halloween, however their use goes back to a much earlier time (again, when?). 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. [20][21] The practice continued throughout the region even after Christianity took hold in the Middle Ages and the festival was renamed All Hallows Eve. The bBonfires, which had been used earlier to ward off spirits, were replaced with hollowed out turnips, the common name for rutabaga in Ireland, Scotland, and Northern England, filled with glowing coals. Rowdy bands of children (known as "guisers" in English speaking countries, from the English word, disguise) roamed the streets in hideous masks. The youngsters Children also carried carved turnips known in Scotland as "tumshie heads". In modern times All Hallows Eve has become known as Halloween and the carved turnips 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.

There's so much superfluousness information in that paragraph that is not needed in this article to describe the rutabaga's role in the holiday. I accept that in Europe a rutabaga is sometimes called a turnip. But how do we know when an author of a publication means a rutabaga? What's a true turnip called in Europe (also a turnip, I believe, or yellow turnip)? What I'm saying is that it's difficult to ascertain, from the sources, that the authors are speaking only of rutabagas.

Let's leave the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion to the dustbin. I don't much care about that article anymore, but the references are there, just not used in-line (I wrote that before in-line citations became popular and easy to use). Also, let's review the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I have objected to your edits since the beginning. I reverted again because I find the edits flawed. We're discussing now (again). Your reinsertion of almost identical language two years apart is not going to sway my opinion on this particular passage. Leave the article as it was before you edited until we've had the time to discuss it. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. It is notable that the first jack-o-lanterns were carved rutabagas, known as swedes or turnips in Europe, and it deserves the information that I have provided. I would think that you would be aware by now that time and again editors that are not from the U.S. have said that they never have heard of rutabagas and object to the title of this article. The sources that I offer do not use the term rutabaga because that term is used only here in the U.S. If you can't come up with a better reason to delete my addition than that you just don't like it, I will restore it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read all of my objections. My primary concern is that there's just too much irrelevant information you provided, combined with unreliable sources. You have not addressed this, other than to say you'll find better references in the future and that you think all of what you wrote is necessary. Why, exactly, do we need to know what name children were given when they dressed up during the holiday? Why do we need to know the original holiday's name? These are things best explained on their respective articles (and it is in the history section of the Halloween article). We would not be doing ourselves a favor in repeating these things on every tangentially-related article. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The clearly "unreliable" sources are in addition to reliable sources and the information does not hinge on their inclusion. As for your concern that the addition is mostly irrelevant, I do not agree. As I have noted in the past, several other articles contain a great deal of information other than just the use of a food item for food, apples and pomegranates for example. Or see the bat article which contains a great deal of historical information. As for "guisers", that is what they are called in Europe and they carried the lanterns and are thus appropriate to mention. Gandydancer (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll grant you the former - but then why include the unreliable sources in the first place when you edited? And I'm not arguing against any description other than use in foods. Perhaps you miss my point. In the bat article, for example, the section on mythology doesn't go into descriptions about what the underworld looked like or meant to the people; it just mentions that in mesoamerican cultures, the bat was a symbol for the underworld. For the rutabaga article, does it matter that people used to believe the end of fall 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"? I get the bonfire connection, since it's relevant to mention that this practice was replaced with coals in the rutabaga, but it can be paired down to not give undue weight to the subject other than how it relates to the subject of this article. There must be a reciprocal relevance here; In those sentences I struck out above, you're not describing anything relevant to the rutabaga except a loosely connected back story for one particular use of the vegetable. That may be more suited for an essay on the topic than for an encyclopedia entry. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No I do not agree about the bat article. From the page:

A gigantic, life-size ceramic bat-man has been discovered and dug up from the Templo Mayor.[citation needed] The Templo Mayor is located in the center of the Mexica capital of Tenochtitlan. Known as a god of death, this statue has the clawed feet and hands of a bat, but the body of a man. The statue's human-like eyes bulged out from the bat-like head, making the Zapotec images very realistic and living. It was said that in the 1930s the Kaqchikel Maya proclaimed that the bat was the Devil’s provider. Kaqchikel would leave the Devil’s underworld home and collect blood from the animals to be used for scrumptious meals to feed the Devil. “In the myths, the beast of prey and the animal that is preyed upon play two significant roles. They represent two aspects of life—the aggressive, killing, conquering, creating aspect of life, and the one that is the matter or, you might say, the subject matter”.[75] In the Devil’s underworld, dead sinners would work off their sins in order to get to heaven, indicating that the bat was too a sinner and worked under the authority of the Devil.[76]

In this article I must first explain why it was believed that evil spirits were out and about on halloween and why the turnips needed to be carved into hideous faces (to scare the spirits off). As you well know from our past discussion, I have pared this information down to the bare minimum and still have it work. It is actually very short and that you fight me every inch of the way is unreasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to prefer brevity. The historical background on the holiday tells us nothing about the usage of the rutabaga today. And our discussion was not complete; I was just busy and could not respond easily. I have edited the section back to what I consider concise without extraneous information. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that my edit was reasonably brief. See for example, as I already suggested, bat and see also apple and pomegranate. I will accept that you prefer your edit, however I prefer mine and I have provided acceptable rationale for my preference. Please keep in mind that I am an experienced and dedicated editor. I have spent many hours on my edits and am if fact one of the top 10 editors for the 2009 flu pandemic, the Haiti earthquake, and the BP oil spill. The fact that "turnips" have been used, and continue to be used at Halloween in the UK suggests that my brief edit is appropriate for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. In this case, the degree of detail about the holiday and the holiday's history was excessive. I'll remind you that the last time we had this disagreement, we asked for a third opinion who concurred that the description as written then (and closely resembling what you propose now) was excessive. Your level of experience is irrelevant, as is mine, which is why we have assume good faith. I know that we both want to see this article improved, but we disagree on the appropriate level of detail on what I view to be unassociated irrelevancies with regard to rutabagas. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to articles for the most part. If a reader is not interested in the Halloween information they can just skip it. I believe most people would find it appropriate and interesting. Gandydancer (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impasse. By your logic, we should include all kinds of irrelevancies. In the description of the species' botanical history, should we include a partial biography of Carl Linnaeus, since he was the first person to formally describe the species? After all, those who are not interested can just skip it. I'm arguing here for parsimony and brevity, and for excluding all unnecessary irrelevancies. Instead of going another round where you don't understand my point, I have asked for help in our discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Rutabaga. We've already had a WP:3O on similar language in 2009, so the next step for dispute resolution will probably be revealed in that discussion. In the interim, I would appreciate a show of good faith on your part. Since you are the sole editor who prefers your edit, and your edit is under discussion, I would appreciate you reverting yourself so that the article stands as it was while we continue to discuss. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly asked me to assume good faith, something I have never asked of you. To repeatedly ask me to assume good faith and yet suggest that my logic is so flawed that I should want to "include all kinds of irrelevancies" and that I am unable to understand your point regarding your wish for brevity when I have clearly said I understand your position but do not agree, suggests to me that you are attacking my ability as an editor. I have removed the information about the "guisers", but to remove anything else would not enable me to provide the information that I want to include. Gandydancer (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you above. I did not meant to imply that you're incapable of understanding my point. My apologies. As I've said, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement about what's required context for the article. (This is not a statement about your logic.) I appreciate the removal of the "guisers" information, but I still feel there's far too much about other topics. Let me expand on something I said briefly before: a succinct, yet complete encyclopedia article should omit certain contextual items that a well-rounded essay might have. I feel that the information you want to include would be better suited for an essay, not for an encyclopedia article. Regardless, I think we'll both benefit from the dispute resolution process. Until we get some feedback, I think we should both refrain from editing the disputed section. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This may surprise you, but I really do understand you when you say: "I feel that the information you want to include would be better suited for an essay, not for an encyclopedia article." When I read my own edit, I understand your problem with it. When I drift into mythological information, reporting information is quite different that the type of information that you present using your expert knowledge. But I consider Wikipedia "my" encyclopedia too, and I want to see this sort of information included. But I have to wonder, how do you feel that the mythology related to apples, pomegranates, and bats is appropriate, or would you prefer that it all be deleted as well? Gandydancer (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Zappa's rutabaga ref in "Call Any Vegetable"

I included a few lines from this famous song of the 1970s by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, in a new section "References in Popular Culture". As this is certainly the most famous reference to the rutabaga in modern song, I am surprised that it was deleted. There are many "References in Popular Culture" sections for other fauna and flora, and the inclusion of such a feature is regarded as normal and unexceptionable. Some go overboard and list dozens of such references. I think that to include just one, certainly very well known to many thousands of music fans, hardly justifies deletion. Myles325a (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Here is your edit:

Almost certainly, the most famous of such references was due to Frank Zappa and his band The Mothers of Invention, in their song "Call Any Vegetable". Below are the relevant lines:

Do you think that you could just state that Zappa did the song and link to it rather than say it is the most famous and include the relevant lines? Gandydancer (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included, passing references in other media are not worthy of mention. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do as Gandydancer suggests, as he appears to be the rutabaga authority here, and its champion. The Zappa song "Call and Vegetables" is one of the Mothers of Invention's best known. Rutabaga is solely an American term. One detail that may not be known to Yanks who write here is that Zappa's invocation of "rutbaga" would have been the first time that most non-U.S. fans of MoI heard the word. And that's many tens of thousands of people, from Britain, Australia, and Eastern Europe etc. I remember hearing it, being puzzled by it, although attracted to the euphony of the word, and looking it up. That was in the 1970s. And I can't think of any other reference to it in popular culture. Myles325a (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. Passing references to the subject of the article are not notable mentions and should not be included, as Jeremy mentioned above. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Read my note above. This mention is the only reference to rutabaga that people outside of the U.S. would have heard. It may be before your time, but the Mothers of Invention are a very big deal, and "Call Any Vegetable" is famous even half a century after it was recorded. And I don't know what you mean by being against "passing references" to the subject. The "References in Popular Culture" feature are full of "passing references", indeed that is pretty much all there is. Moreover, it is difficult to think how the humble rutabaga could sustain an entire classic compendium by itself. I'm reinserting the quote. It's only one line, and I think the reference is worthy. Myles325a (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Two separate contributors have stated that that the information is inappropriate for inclusion, so re-adding would not be proper. Please read the linked policies I added earlier. Also the source you are using is not considered a reliable, secondary source. I have deleted it again, so please consider the policies before trying to re-add the challenged information. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Jeremy. Perhaps reading this (Wikipedia:POPCULTURE#Good and bad popular culture references) may illuminate what would be required before this pop-culture reference can be included in the article. You assert that the rutabaga reference in the song is notable, but we don't have a reliable source discussing the mention of rutabagas in the song. What you provided is a lyrics website, which is to say, "this exists." For it to be included in the article, we need a reliable source to say that the lyric is in there and it was an important reference. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article titled "Rutabaga" not "Swede"

The vast majority of the world calls this a Swede, the term Rutabaga is only used in the USA. So why use the US word for the title of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.47.76 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. There are many reasons. Firstly, the title swede would have to be disambiguated as something like swede (vegetable), which isn't preferable to the succinct title without disambiguation. Further, not everyone calls it a swede. Others in Europe call it a turnip, making the decision to correctly title this article that much more difficult. It was decided in the archives of this talk page to keep the article title at the one it was given when it was first created in 2002. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Others in Europe" mostly use different languages though. This is English-language Wikipedia, so what they call it is irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The term rutabaga is the common North American term. While the term swede is common, it is not the definitive term in Britain and Ireland, as stated in the article. The statement that swede is the preferred term in all other English-speaking nations needs to be properly cited as it is a very broad claim.

As to why the article is called rutabaga, it is an WP:Engvar case. The article was originally written in American English and should stay that way unless there is valid and compelling case per WP:Common name. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is far from resolved. The vast majority (by number of speakers and by countries whose national languages include english) of the english-speaking world calls it a swede, it's only the US and Canada who use this word "rutabaga". Heck, even in Sweden they don't call it a "rutabaga" when they speak english. Title of the article should be changed to "swede" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.150.104 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition of the "English-speaking world"

This assertion is made in the etymology section: "Swede" is the preferred term used in most of the English-speaking world, including England, Wales, Australia, India, New Zealand and many other parts of the world that use British English as a standard.

How are we defining "English-speaking world"? Is it by population or geographical area? Does English need to be the primary language in a country, or does a small percentage of the population qualify it as officially English-speaking? To me, this assertion seems inaccurate. Using the Wikipedia English-speaking population page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population), I added up all the English-speakers in all the countries listed in the above assertion, and the total English-speaking population does not equal that of the United States. The US has 251,388,301 English speakers, and the rest combined have 205,857,605. The discrepancy is far greater if you look at the population that has English as a first language. My point is, if were going by the number of people who actually speak English every day, it does not look like "Swede is the preferred term used in most of the English-speaking world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzannenixon (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I Agree with the claim is overly broad, I tagged it as needing a citation in August and no one fixed it. I have edited the claim so it is supported by sources used in the article. I removed India, Australia and New Zealand as there is nothing in the article that supports their inclusion in the list. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not entirely clear and you're not to be blamed for being confused. The key is the statement "parts of the world that use British English as a standard" This includes India, Nigeria, United Kingdom and Australia. English-speakers in India+Nigeria+United Kingdom and Australia = 125M++79M+58<+17M = 279 million, well above the 267 million in the US. Anyway there is an article that explains it all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world 86.150.62.210 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the claim that 125 million people in India is spurious. The actual number who actually speak English with any fluency in that country is less that .1%, or roughly 250,000. The vast majority of people in India will use the Hindi word for rutabaga and not an British English term. The link you provide is a template and not proof of your claims, try this: List of countries by English-speaking population.

Informal mediation

There is an active dispute about the role of turnips as Jack-O-Lanterns, and the relevance of information relating to Halloween being in this article. The two editors involved in the dispute are Gandydancer and Rkitko. I've asked both if they would be interested in participating in an informal mediation, and they have both agreed. If anyone else is interested in participating, I have no objection to this.

To clarify my agenda here, I'm only interested in arranging for a possible compromise. Mediation is completely voluntary, and if terms are agreed to, it is up to the editors involved to abide by those terms, they aren't enforceable. I'm not here to give my personal preference as to what content to include in the article, or make a judgement as to who is "correct" in regards to what should be included. I will do my best to advise people about what our existing guidelines and policies suggest, and will try to keep discussion focused and relevant. Fortunately, it looks like there is no problem with civility on this talk page, so my task shouldn't be that difficult. :)

Based on the discussion above, I'll try to summarize what I see is the heart of the dispute, and then list the points that should be clarified and resolved individually.

It is accepted on both sides that rutabagas have been used historically with the Halloween holiday, and that information about this fact is relevant to the article. There are, however, some specific points of dispute to be worked out.

• I'm not clear, but is it acceptable that rutabagas were the first Jack-O-Lanterns? It's difficult to tell if that point is disputed above.
• The reliability of some sources being used for expanded information about Halloween has been questioned.
• Some of the information that was to be added may not be entirely relevant, such as the origins behind the holiday itself, which were added to explain why Jack-O-Lanterns exist.
• Overall, the information to be added might take up too much of the article to be warranted.

Are there any other specific points in dispute? If so, we can add them to the list. If not, we can look at these points one by one and come to a consensus about them. Thank you. -- Atama頭 20:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond here. I've been distracted by a change in employment. I do not see any problems with the summary above and welcome mediation on these points. I believe the first point ties in with my questions about whether the rutabaga (Brassica napobrassica) rather than the turnip (Brassica rapa var. rapa) was used in this manner. Were both used? The information about Halloween is in both articles. I've not been able to determine this from the references since they almost never use a scientific names, just muddled common names. And when I raise this point, Gandydancer has always made it a point to note that the rutabaga is known as a turnip in some parts of Europe, which I am well aware of. What is the turnip called there, then? I think getting to the bottom of this point would clarify some issues, but with references that just say "turnip," how are we to know which taxon it's discussing? I also think discussing when it was first used would be ideal, since this could tell us which article the information should be on -- rutabagas were not known in England until the end of the 18th century. And I think Gandydancer and I would both agree that we have a fundamental disagreement on the amount of information required to explain a topic in appropriate detail. I once argued that the amount of (in my opinion) unnecessary information incorporated into the discussion of its use in Halloween would be like me expanding the simple mention of Carl Linnaeus in the botanical history section into a mini-biography of him, which has nothing to do with the subject of the article. That's why we have a link to Carl Linnaeus instead of more info and a link to Halloween instead of including the non-pertinent info here. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been more than a month so it seems pretty obvious that there is no active dispute. If the dispute starts up again and moderation is needed, someone can leave a message on my talk page, thank you. -- Atama頭 23:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I disagree. There has been no response from Gandydancer, but I still would like to remove the material for all of the reasons I have stated. Could we revert to a previous version that did not have this depth of detail? Rkitko ^(talk) 00:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to add to Atama's post and expected a response from Rkitko. After 2 weeks I assumed he had decided not to respond and was not aware of the September 3 post. As for the problem of just which "turnip" was used for lanterns, perhaps we will never know for a fact. However I very strongly feel that it is the rutabaga because they tend to be larger and to have a rough skin which would more easily be make to look creepy. However, I note that Rkitko states in his recent post that rutabagas were not known in England till the end of the 18th century - I have not run across that information, is there a link? As to the amount of information on the early (and current) use as jack-o-lanterns, I don't feel it's too much at all. I can understand Rkitko's POV when he states that a mention is OK, but the historical information that I have included is too much. But I argue that it takes a few sentences to set up the history of why the ancient fires to scare off the evil spirits that roamed on halloween eventually became the glowing coals or candles in the lanterns. I also pointed out the extensive mythological information at the bat, apple, and other articles. Rkitko brushes that suggestion off as though it does not apply to this article. I don't agree. In this case, where we are at a point of total disagreement, it only makes sense to take a look at other similar articles to help to settle this dispute. Gandydancer (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your very strong feeling is not enough to convince anyone that it was this taxon that was used in this way. We need reliable sources that say so. The information about introduction to England is currently in the article. Many sources agree that widespread introduction was not until the late 18th Century. I wrote about this in the history section in the article.

As for my earlier comments on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the essential argument you're trying to make is that, "well, other articles have this information." This is not a defensible argument because the "other stuff" may also be included incorrectly (e.g. vandalism or a general lack of maintenance as the article grows out of control by many disparate editors). I've seen this happen many times with "In popular culture" sections, where editors will add non-notable mentions of the subject and then point to other articles where the use of pop culture references is also out of control as evidence for why their addition was good and correct. So let's not talk about bat or apple. Let's stick to this article.

Let's also step back and distinguish the disagreement. Again, I am not against the inclusion of "mythological information" as long as it is well-sourced. What I disagree with is the extent to which Gandydancer has described the context of this information. Prose about such uses or mentions can be quite useful and certainly improve the articles, but what we don't need is every article that is tangentially related to Halloween to describe the history of the holiday; that's why we have a Halloween article we can link to. This is not to say that some context is necessary, but certainly not this much that is presently in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed one of my references and I believe that the others are acceptable. Re the introduction to England, the history section has 2 references, and one of them is a cookbook. The other one states late 18th century, but I hardly think that one book is proof of anything. This source [1] suggests a much earlier date. As for out of control "In popular culture", sections, yes I agree with you and have pared some down myself, for example on "my" gandy dancer article. But that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. When I make my edits I believe that I am not only representing myself and what I want to see included in Wikipedia, I believe that there is a certain percent of the people that read our articles that have the same interests that I do. For instance, an apple or a bat is more than a fruit or a "bird", and I want to learn about that. If a rutabaga is more than just a vegetable, and it seems that it is, I want to read about that too. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"If a rutabaga is more than just a vegetable, and it seems that it is, I want to read about that too." That's why we have articles for those topics that we can link to so that we don't end up reproducing content. And Re: the history section, the second reference, Sturtevant's Notes on Edible Plants is a reliable source that reviewed the evidence. It cites multiple publications that all point to a late 18th Century widespread introduction. Can you come up with a time frame for these unspecified "early" holiday celebrations? Rkitko ^(talk) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) So let's try to resolve the first issue if we can, it might be the simplest dispute. Rkitko, Gandydancer stated, "As for the problem of just which "turnip" was used for lanterns, perhaps we will never know for a fact." Would you agree with that statement? We're not allowed to speculate that they were rutabagas even if the larger vegetable would make more sense in that role, we do need to verify the information in the article. Therefore, perhaps all that needs to be said in the text is that "turnips" are reported to be the first jack-o-lanterns, and repeat that rutabagas are called turnips in parts of the world. Those two points, I believe, are verified. You can leave the readers to make the connection that based on that information, rutabagas may have been the first jack-o-lanterns. If we put those two points together to draw a conclusion that we can't verify, adding 2+2 and coming up with the answer "4" ourselves, that is synthesis. -- Atama頭 17:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as we avoid synthesis, I'm ok with this. I kept on trying to get my point across that the references use an ambiguous vernacular name that may or may not be this species (I wasn't getting acknowledgement from Gandydancer that he understood this point). It seems like somewhere someone would have mentioned it in a reliable source, but I've been unable to find one. That makes me skeptical, but I was essentially fine with the pared down version that I had edited, save for the ambiguous "early times" wording, which really ought to be nailed down no matter what the outcome of this mediation. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand Rkitko's point and in fact it has been discussed in the past - we just do not agree. I see no reason that a source speaking of an old Irish custom that is still practiced in parts of Scotland and England would need to clarify the word they are using when they are using what is to them a common and proper word: turnip or swede. We have even had several long arguments/discussions at this article by people that say the article should be named "swede" with many people saying they have never heard the word rutabaga till they saw it here. See the wording in this BBC article:

...Halloween wasn't always synonymous with these huge orange gourds. The custom used to be to make a lantern out of a turnip or swede, but when the Irish pitched up in America there was a distinct lack of such things, so they substituted pumpkins instead.

But I don't care if the article says "may have been" if it is such a problem. Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe we can talk about another point, which is the question about the reliability of sources being used in the section. Gandydancer stated above, "I have removed one of my references and I believe that the others are acceptable." Are there still references currently in use, or that anyone wishes to add, that are in dispute in terms of reliability? -- Atama頭 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Current reference 21, seems to be reproduced from a now defunct non-profit set up in Washington state. With no information on the author's expertise, this one is questionable. Reference 25 appears to be an enthusiast's blog of sorts, and with no recognized expertise in the field, I'd say this one isn't reliable enough for Wikipedia. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref #21 could go as that information is linked and there is plenty of information elsewhere. However I strongly feel that ref #25 is important to keep even though it is a blog (and actually one of 2 references used for that information). I will quote from his blog:

Known as a neep or tumshie in Scotland, the type of turnip used for carving at Samhainn is the swede, yellow turnip, or rutabaga as it's commonly known elsewhere. They are skull-like in shape and the two-tone purple and off-white skin helps to accentuate the similarities with a skull once it's been carved and lit. The flesh is quite tough to cut through, but scooping out the insides isn't quite as hard as you might think - white turnips are a lot softer and easier to scoop out, but being smaller, you're not likely to be able to put a lid on without the candle going out.

The tumshie heads would have been hung from a pole and carried around on Hallowe'en night by guisers, but more usually these days they're simply put in the window or on the doorstep of the house. Either way, the purpose of them is to ward off spirits that are supposed to be about on the night, so the aim of them is to look as sinister and threatening as possible. In many parts of the world, putting them at the window will attract guisers too.

Looking at this guy's blog, he clearly is well-educated and knows what he's talking about. As an avid Wikipedia reader and editor, I want to have this sort of information available to me. Gandydancer (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What are the qualifications of the author of Ref 25? Remember that anyone can create a personal webpage and include information that is inaccurate. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, self-published sources are usually only allowed under limited circumstances. Our guide as to whether or not to allow them typically is to determine if the author is an expert, and we determine that not on the subjective quality of the source (for example, whether it seems that he knows what he's talking about) but whether or not the author whose work in that field has been published by reliable third-party publications. This blogger for the most part is anonymous (I looked at their other blog too) so establishing the author's credentials is practically impossible. -- Atama頭 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of the fact that disputed information needs to be backed by acceptable references, and technically speaking this ref is not acceptable. The author states he has a MA in Archaeology and Celtic Civilisation and the apparent knowledge that he demonstrates and his impressive book section certainly would convince most people that he is well-educated and knowledgeable, but he is not a published author.

If this article were about religion or politics this ref certainly would not be adequate no matter how knowledgeable the author seemed to be, but since it is about a rutabaga, something that generally does not give rise to strong and opposing positions, I would think that it would be considered acceptable. That said, since Rkitko feels that the information may not be accurate it seems I have no choice but to not use it in the article. However, it is not critical to include since the same information is available elsewhere. But since the author at this site presents the overall information so well and the information is not in disagreement with information from other sites that Rkitko will accept, and it offers instructions for carving a turnip, would it be okay to include it in the External links section? Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we verify that the author has those credentials? Has the author been published by reliable third-party publications? We can't tell. Our standards for references must remain consistent regardless of the content of the article. I would also discourage use of this link in the external links section. See WP:ELNO #11. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Just checking - is this discussion still on-going? Gandydancer, did you take a look at WP:ELNO #11? What do you think? Rkitko ^(talk) 15:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already said I will not use it above: "That said, since Rkitko feels that the information may not be accurate it seems I have no choice but to not use it in the article. However, it is not critical to include since the same information is available elsewhere". Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that's progress. :) Are there any other points of contention? Is the section unduly long for this article even with that information trimmed? -- Atama頭 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and I'm not sure what makes you believe that I have no problem with trimming information. Perhaps I have not been clear. Please let me know what I said to suggest I'm willing to trim. I "trimmed" 2 years ago to what I have long said is the minimum to get my information across, though I did, since then, delete the info re the "guisers". As for the length of my edit, we have discussed that at length as well. I have argued that while in the U.S. people do not think Halloween when they think of turnips (rutabagas), in the UK they do, thus it deserves a brief discussion here. I have argued that the (for instance) bat, apple and pomegranate articles have extremely long sections about the mythological connections. Rkitko has countered my argument with the suggestion that a "two wrongs don't make a right" line of thought. I find his argument very weak and I don't accept it.Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)