Talk:Bush tucker

message: As a random Australian browsing the history of this page as it's evolved for the last decade, I'd like to point out that the term "Bushfood" is not deserving of a mention in the opening sentence. It's barely deserving of a passing mention as a term that may have been used by a tiny minority of wankers1 for a brief instant in history (no doubt with well intentions, but certainly misguidedly). I've never heard the term in my 37 years and I doubt my children, or my children's children ever will. Hope that helps vindicate some of the discussions that went on here about it. Just because someone coined the term in a paper once, doesn't make it a thing. I'd be more interested in the etymology of the term "tucker" actually, why doesn't someone mention that instead of trying to dismiss the term as "colloquial" and therefore somewhat less legitimate? 124.181.125.20 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never heard of the term Bushfood 

message: Is it just me or is the headlines in the artical, font sizes are bigger?--KevinWindows 08:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: As it was mentioned I tried to link Norforce to the Wiki page as per the ol' square brackets method. But it's a red/broken link for some reason. Anybody a little more experienced with Wiki than I know why? Ozlucien (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Links are case-sensitive - now fixed --Melburnian (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norforce link broken 

message: Hallo all,
Although I am not a native speaker of English and have never set my foot on Australian soil, I doubt that the equation "Bushfood" = "that which has traditionally used by Australian Aboriginals" is accurate (and if I  am right then the article is misleading). Years ago I read an article on mercenaries in Africa in an English language magazine (sorry I forgot the name of that one) and remember a passage where one "old hand" was quoted as saying "...Bushfood is good for your immune system - that's what they teach you at the South African Army...". I am completely sure they wrote the term "Bushfood" there. And as an South African who worked all his life in that continent he certainly did not refer to Australian plants and stuff, did he? So I infer that what the article in its current form says about the use of the term is not wrong, but too limited and hence gives the reader a wrong impression  - and therfore needs to be corrected and amended.
Otherwise fine and highly interesting.
Regards, Sophophilos 147.142.186.54 (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I've thought for some time that this article should be moved to Bush tucker. Despite what John Moss says above about bushfood being "the term that is used by people who actually wild-harvest/produce, market and cook Australian native foods on a regular basis", plenty of sites for which  it is certainly not the most commonly used term for Australian native foods among the general population; bush tucker is (I point out again that Google hits for "bush tucker" (~255,000) outweigh those for "bushfood"/"bush food" (~14,600/~55,900) by more than 3 to 1, and plenty of the initial hits for "bush tucker" are for specialty or "gourmet" online shops). And since you point out that the word "bushfood" is also used elsewhere, I'm even more strongly convinced that this article as it stands (i.e. the article about native Australian foodstuffs) should be moved to Bush tucker. Thefamouseccles (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Phytogent, I don't know how much the state of the Internet would have changed in the six months since your comment, but the current (as of 25-01-2010) number of Ghits lists "bush tucker" at ~ 170,000 hits, whereas the combined search "bush food" OR "bush foods" OR "bushfood" OR "bushfoods" only makes up 97,900 hits. I'm a little stumped myself as to how your search on "bush foods" could have come up more than two orders of magnitude off mine. I'm not arguing that "bush food" and variants are not a popular way of referring to Australian native foods, but I stand by what I said: "bush tucker" is the more commonly used term. Thefamouseccles (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the term "Bushfood" and its use, again 

message: I'm not sure if this sentence is totally correct as a absolute statement: "However, despite the industry being founded on Aboriginal knowledge of the plants,...". Aboriginal knowledge definitely was the original source of information for the commercial use of native food plants of Central Australia and the Top End, like wattle seed, desert tomato, kakadu plum and quangdong. However, the direct link with Aboriginal knowledge is not so clear with the commercialization of east coast native food plants like, riberry, Davidson's plum, Illawarra plum, warrigal greens, lemon myrtle, native mint, river mint, anise myrtle, finger lime and Dorrigo pepper. Bunya nut is one of the few east coast species where Aboriginal knowledge clearly played a primary role in commercial development of the species. The Aboriginal usage aspects for many of the east coast species was retrofitted into the historical profile of the commercialized species for food safety arguments after the species were already in commercial use, but in some cases, Aboriginal knowledge on east coast food plants is scant or non-existant as a tragic result of the disruption to traditional culture by non-indigenous colonization. It's often hard to come-by Aboriginal names for many east coast species. I wonder how we can change this sentence to more accurately reflect the history of commercial development without being indifferent to the point?Aareo (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aboriginal knowledge role in modern native foods industry

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bush tucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819082114/http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/nativefoods/crops/index.htm to http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/nativefoods/crops/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bush tucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203213554/http://nativetastes.at.hm/lemon-myrtle/australian-bushfood-recipes/ to http://nativetastes.at.hm/lemon-myrtle/australian-bushfood-recipes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: These lists could be presented in a much more helpful way.
It is not adequate to group all states together like this (eg, bush tucker of Victoria is completely irrelevant for people looking for bush tucker in Tasmania)
I'd recommend creating a sortable table for each 'culinary province'.
The table for each culinary province should have 5 columns:
i) Plant part
ii) Scientific name
iii) Common name
iv) Examples
v) Citation
I will create a table, specifically for Tasmania, to show what I feel is a more informative layout.
Vitreology (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List cleanup 

message: I note this plant in the list: Cycnogeton procerum (formerly Triglochin procera) BUT when I go to that link, it doesn't bring up the page Cycnogeton procerum but instead links to the Triglochin page. I searched for the Cycnogeton procerum page, but it only brought up the Cynogeton general page. On the general page there's mention of Cycnogeton procerum but there's no existing page/link under that name.
Which is it? Is it still Triglochin procera or is it now Cycnogeton procerum? This needs to be corrected/updated and followed through to ensure any references to it, are corrected/updated on all relevant pages, and not just a confusing mention on this page.
Tzali (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query reference: Cycnogeton procerum (formerly Triglochin procera) 

message: I note on the Dianella tasmanica page that it says "The fruits of Dianella tasmanica are toxic to an unknown degree and should not be eaten. They ..., produce an irritating tingling sensation in the mouth when consumed." Therefore I'd suggest it should be removed from this list, unless someone is able to determine if it's truly edible and not toxic.
Tzali (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query: remove Dianella tasmanica?