Talk:Parsnip

message: Don't you think someone has gone a little overboard here with the citation neededs, vagues, weasel words, etc.?
In Roman times parsnips were believed[weasel words] to be an aphrodisiac. how is were believed a weasel word? Doesn't In Roman times imply pretty directly that Romans in general believed this?
Seeds can be[vague] planted in early spring, as soon as the ground can be worked. How exactly can this be clarified? Harvesting can[vague] begin in late fall after the first frost, Same here. How would you recommend this be clarified?
Ironically,[weasel words] it is among the closest relatives of actual parsley,[citation needed] which actually[weasel words] can be bred to develop a very parsnip-like root.[citation needed]
I removed the ironically, Irony is the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, as such there's nothing ironic about the Parsnip being related to parsley, it's actually utterly appropriate- bbuddha
If Ironically and actually are weasel words, would it not be more productive to simply remove them than just attach warnings? Would it not be a better use of one's time to correct the errors in an article rather than fill it with warnings that make it unreadable? LeeWilson (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely, and I've removed all the tags. I left the "references need improvement" and "article tone needs fixing" templates at the top in case anybody is interested in working on it. – jaksmata 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: weasel words etc

message: What does The parsnip has greater nutritional value than any vegetable except the potato mean?  Calories?  Surely peas & beans have more protein.  Please make this more clear.  --JBellis 20:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left this in after a revision, but feel that it needs at least a reference to the source of this info.Dave 19:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional value 

message: I was looking for informations about parsnip and I found this page:  . The two first paragraphs of the webpage are almost word-to-word copy of the wiki page... Is there a way to be sure there is no copyright infringement? Or maybe it's the other way around... --Lukeluke 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That site has copied/pasted from the wikipedia article. I remember putting the bit about potatoes replacing parsnips in cooking in myself () This is OK. Dave 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rip-off? 

message: I thought carrots were created by American Scientists byt cross breeding two other different kind of roots vegetables. How can carrots be confused with parsnips when in Roman times they didn't even exist??24.83.178.11 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Carrots That Old? 

message: I think the title says it all.  Interesting choice of photo.  Halogenated 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tempted to remove it as soon as it was added on the basis of being non-encyclopedic, but being unsure, I decided to leave it.  I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think that's justification for putting obviously sexual material in articles that have nothing to do with sex.  The picture is amusing in a sense, and it may belong somewhere in Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong here. – jaksmata 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erotic Parsnip photography 

message: Has anyone come across any hybridisation of parsnips?
: I can't think of any hybrids in the whole Apiaceae. Why do you ask? JöG (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know if they have come up with any red parsnips yet?   I understand there are now red and blue carrots (take your pick), so why can't there be red parsnips?   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hybridisations

message: "Poison hemlock contains volatile alkaloids that have been used as poisons since ancient times. The best way to differentiate it from parsnip are purple streaks and blotches on a smooth hairless stem."
This is a bit vague as to whether it is hemlock or parsnip that has this characteristic. Considering one is edible and the other is incredibly poisonous, it might be a good idea to make this entirely unambiguous Treeturtle81 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing parsnip and hemlock

message: Undid revision 299247964 by 99.177.158.162 (talk) Removed "reference needed" tag
Undid addition of a "reference needed" tag about a statement inside quotation marks with a footnote.  The reference was indeed there.  Specifically, the tag had been added to a parenthetical assertion that in ancient times carrots were purple or white.  This parenthetical assertion was a part of a quoted passage about the difficulty of distinguishing carrots from parsnips in classical writings; the passage was attributed to Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf.  Jay L09 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitous "reference needed" Tag? 

message: The branches/flowers of poison parsnip (another name for regular parsnip, I think) is pretty phototoxic.  If you brush against it, it can get sap on your skin that reacts with sunlight to give you serious burns.  This is how I learned about parsnip, and I'm surprised that there's nothing about it in the Wikipedia article.  Like poison ivy, it's something people are supposed to watch out for at edges of clearings and stuff, especially the more it spreads.  Why no mention of this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.245.114 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Poison parsnip" is Cicuta, which has its own article. There is a bit about this plant giving skin burns, although it doesn't mention phototoxicity specifically. Feel free to expand on it if you'd like. – jaksmata 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no discussion of phototoxicity? 

message: The article claims "Parsnips resemble carrots, but are paler than most carrots and have a sweeter flavor."
Um... no. No they don't. Have you ever ate a parsnip? As far as I can say, it's like a carrot but without the flavor. It's certainly not sweeter. I'd call this claim spurious at best, and just plain wrong at worst.Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, however, objective ways of extracting sugar.   You would need access to a laboratory, but I am sure it can be done.   And once you determine how many milligrams of sugar can be extracted from ten kilograms of pulped parsnips, you can have a pretty good idea how sweet the plant's root is.   If the sugar is dissolved in water you can use a spectrometer to get an even better idea how sweet it is.   The next question, here, is whether there is a practical way of distinguishing the sugar of the common parsnip from any of the other carbohydrates that can be extracted from it.   The main page of this article could be improved by discussing the nutrients (and sugars) of the common parsnip.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweeter??? 

message: Carrots (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2384/2) have higher micronutrient levels than parsnips (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2515/2)... if nutritiondata.self.com is to be trusted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.226.70 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not richer in vitamins and minerals than carrots... 

message: *
--Stone (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Parsnip is a biennial with a rosette of roughly hairy leaves that has a pungent odor when crushed. 
:Mention that a biennial grows only vegetative parts the first year; root vegetables are often planted as annuals because there is no need to allow the plant to put any energy into flowering.
The petioles are grooved and have sheathed bases. The leaves are once- or twice-pinnate with broad, ovate, sometimes lobed leaflets with toothed margins; they grow up to 40 cm (16 in) long.
:Generally describe the leaf first (the plant form, rosette of leaves, leaf form, then details), because it is hard for the reader to jump back and forth. Botanists can tell plant description online that were written by amateurs and for Wikipedia (not a bad thing), because of this disorder that makes the descriptions hard to read. Biggest to smallest, then parts and details.
The flower stalk develops in the second year, growing to a height of 40 to 200 cm (20 to 80 in). 
:Mention again that the cultivated plant is/is not usually allowed to flower (I suspect not, just some longer growth).
It is hairy, grooved, hollow (except at the nodes), and sparsely branched. 
:Wikilink nodes.
It has a few stalkless, single-lobed leaves measuring 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in) long that are arranged in opposite pairs. 
:A little confusing, stalkless leaves on the stalk?
The yellow flowers are in a loose, compound umbel measuring 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in) in diameter. There are 6–25 straight pedicels, each measuring 2–5 cm (1–2 in) that support the umbellets (secondary umbels). The umbels and umbellets usually have no upper or lower bracts. The flowers have tiny sepals or lack them entirely, and measure about 3.5 mm. They consist of five yellow petals that are curled inward, five stamens, and one pistil.
:I would describe the umbel, The "yellow flowers grow loosely on a compound umbel," then move onto secondary umbels and the flowers. This is a little confusing. 
The fruits, or schizocarps, are oval and flat, with narrow wings and short, spreading styles. They are colored straw to light brown, and measure 4–8 mm long.[3]
:I would probably say, "The fruits are oval and flat schizocarps with narrow wings and short, spreading styles. 
Excellent choice of a source for a plant description section, by the way. The weed articles tend to be easier for the general reader to get for further information and easier for all readers and editors to understand. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Work on technical description

message: These are, in no particular order, some old books I found at Project Gutenberg which could possibly be used, but only for historical research for the article should any wish to:
*John Evelyn, esq., Acetaria: A Discourse of Sallets (1937 reprint of the 1st edition from 1699): page 12.
*William Salisbury, The Botanist's Companion, Vol. II (1816): No. 455 (as "Parsnep").
*Maxwell T. Masters, Vegetable Teratology (1869)
::Mostly included just for fun, but it does mention Pastinaca sativa.
*Fearing Burr, Jr., The Field and Garden Vegetables of America (1863): Pages 46-51.
::Potentially looks excellent.
*unknown Courtois-Gérard, Manuel pratique de Jardinage, 7th Edition (1868)
::In French.
*Sutton and Sons, The Culture of Vegetables and Flowers From Seeds and Roots, 16th Edition (1921): page 68.
Should I become ambitious, I may try them myself. Hamamelis (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Old books for cultivation history

message: The FDA noyes that Parsnip root is Hepatotoxic. Re sweetness, Parsnip is added to savory soups and stews to impart an aromatic flavor. 67.165.116.17 (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps the "Health Benefits" should include getting Liver Cancer 

message: I'm surprised this article passed GA. Parsnip is an important food, but there is no food picture here, only plant picture. Anyway, I tried adding one, but it got reverted for some reason. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the addition because it was blatant advertising for a restaurant. However, I have added two images of cooked parsnips, that I found on Commons, that do not come with advertising baggage.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly wasn't advertising - it was cited to a major metropolitan newspaper. I agree that it needed a photo of parsnip as a "main", but the dessert use could also be mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No picture of parsnip as a food? 

message: The article has existed since 2003, had a "citations needed"-type of article tag as early as 2008, but having such removed without attending to the issue, it has become yet another morass of "just trust me" editor's erudition—a lede, at least, of stated purported facts without citation anywhere—at least since May 2013. As for the in-body citations—added at end of paragraph, post hoc, or truly encompassing all the material preceding the citation? (For an initial glimpse into the lede problem, the tip of the proverbial faux-encyclopedic iceberg, search the phytoanatomical term "winged", and see its appearance just once, absent citation, in the lede. Then rinse and repeat.) This is just one of what has become far too many cases of such writing prevalent here, likewise, and shamefully, existing without any deserved warning to readers whatsoever (which, since the emergence of mobile as preeminent mode of access, is the institutional status quo for our articles). So, specifically, shame on the editor that removed the "refimprove", thus setting the stage for the article to expand for a decade in the direction of pseudo-scholarly, pseudo-encyclopedic content, and shame on editors that continue to add content sans sourcing. Et, bonne chance to the dedicated editor that will take the time to review each sentence, to see if all the material preceding the citations actually appears therein. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4CE9:701A:E5B8:D10C (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * As I said,  tip of the iceberg. Pick any of a variety of further terms, and as I said, repeat. And even if I believed in the scholarly validity of post hoc addition of possible citations to units of content (I do not, for book-length reasons I will let you contemplate unshared)—I am not in the habit of cleaning up the messes made by earnest masses of individuals that so thoroughly disrespect applicable WP guidelines and policy (other than my students, in any case); certainly not, at such a scale as this. No, this is an institutional problem, dear leader, and demands an institutional solution. (The carte blanche disappearance of issue tags from mobile platforms, and the clear trend toward superficially beautifying articles through tag removal without rectifying issues has convinced me it is worth only the effort to question individuals doing this on large scale.) Cheers, bonne chance with any efforts you make in the direction of WP as a reliable encyclopedia, one whose contributors consistently follow its stated rules. Perhaps begin with WP:GAR action, and placing the appropriate article tags; the issues are prima facie obvious. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:4CE9:701A:E5B8:D10C (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the IP editor's specific example about the term winged, there does seem some confusion in the article between the use of fruits and seeds. The sentence in the lead states "The seeds are pale brown, flat, and winged", in the body it states "The fruits, or schizocarps, are oval and flat, with narrow wings and short, spreading styles. They are colored straw to light brown, and measure 4 to 8 mm". The source that is used in the body states, "Fruits (schizocarps) oval, with a distinctive woody endocarp (Theobald 1971), splitting into two strongly flattened 'seeds' (mericarps) with flat sides adjacent, each seed rounded or oval in outline and  narrowly winged, 4-8 mm  long, straw-coloured to light brown". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too, PaleCloudedWhite, but am not knowledgeable enough to do something about that. IP, I'm not picking anything, nor am I about to fly to San Francisco or to VP to propose some institutional measure. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a botanist, so hesitate to make botanical assertions, though obviously any source should be represented accurately. In this instance, depending on the correctness of interchanging the terms mericarp and seed, the lead seems to fulfill that requirement, though the body perhaps doesn't. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph after paragraph of WP:OR 

message: In US supermarkets, at least, parsnips are sold individually vs. carrots which are always sold in bundles.  Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How they're sold