Talk:Potato/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit request

The Top Potato Producers (2010) table should include Belarus with its 7 831 110 metric tonnes of potato (see FAO link). It's more than in France and the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.11.69 (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The table "Comparison to other major staple foods" seems awkward, comparing dehydrated foods, such as grain, with hydrated ones. It is unclear how this information could be used for comparison, and it may lead to distorted use. (Also, the term "raw" seems to be conflated with "dried" in the footnotes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yestalan (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Conflicting information -- top says 25% of global production is consumed by humans, section #5 says 2/3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.37.154 (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The 25% figure was incorrect and I have removed it. SmartSE (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

in the nutrition section, the values of the peeled potatoes are in the unpeeled column and vice versa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.166.85 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also under the storage heading the information given regarding refrigeration citing notes 2 and 75, contradicts that given later citing note 80. The latter citation is also no longer linked. I suspect the prior info, that potatoes are optimally stored at 39 degrees F which is the approx temp of most refrigerators is correct, and thus the entire paragraph at the end of this section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.247.35 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammar review

As of August 07, 2012, this article needs a grammar review. Please add missing commas. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Potatoes are the 4th largest starch crop not food crop. Soybean is the world's 4th largest food crop. Potato comes in at 6th in terms of total calories grown. Sugarcane is 5th just for info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.146.188 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a source for that? I've been reading a fair bit about potatoes recently, and many sources are saying that they are now the third largest crop after wheat and rice. SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SmartSE regarding the updated sources (with potato as the largest crop after wheat and rice). These kind of statistics change fast, and the "starch or food crop" matter mainly depends on the journal/organization publishing the information.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx It is the FAO; food and agricultural organization in Rome, ITA. I know its the UN's estimates, but its the best we have for these things. If you don't believe me and cant navagate the FAO site to do some simple fact checking I honestly don't care I am done with wiki anyhow 50.80.146.188 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Hello fellow editors, I came here to discuss a topic here, I have been having a nice little talk with my friend Marshal here about the origin of the potato. So I’ve decided to bring the matter to a broader audience to collect some feedback. The issue I’ve observed is the following, the article uses these three references to back the claim that the domesticated potato has its origin in Peru: [1] [2] and [3]. The first one of the International Potato Center doesn’t exist and the working link is this, none of those references say that the potato was only originated in Peru, Bolivia was also mentioned but in this Wikipedia article was excluded and I don’t see any proper justification.

• Iberia and the Americas page 867 says: Domestication probably took place in today’s highland Peru and Bolivia as much as 10,000 years ago.
• Los crops of the Incas page 94 only refers to the species which is considered the most primitive: Widely considered the most primitive of the domesticated potatoes, this species (Solanum stenotomum).
• The International Potato Center only says: mostly found in the Andes of South America.

I brought this issue to Marshal and he kindly pointed me to this source, the abstract says:

• Our data support a monophyletic origin of the landrace cultivars from the northern component of this complex in Peru.

However I read the full article and on page 14695 says, what I consider a clarification about the real frontiers of this cut:

• The topology of the entire data set is in concordance with the morphological (21), RAPD, and RFLP results (22) in defining a northern (species from Peru, together with S. achacachense from northern Bolivia) and southern (species from Bolivia and northern Argentina) clade of the S. brevicaule complex. This geographic split does not exactly follow country borders, but very closely so. For example, the northern clade contains S. achacachense PI 558032 from the department of La Paz, Bolivia bordering Peru, and the southern clade contains S. leptophyes PI 458378 from the department of Puno bordering Bolivia.

We have different interpretations about what does it mean, for me it’d be a confirmation that the northern complex of the S. brevicaule, which for the author is the group of potato species that were first domesticated, also includes some species that are native of the Bolivian department of La Paz so it doesn’t exactly follow the frontier but very closely, but it’d mean that is not strictly limited to Peru. Marshal disagrees on that, so I consulted other sources about this matter. Regarding this classification this is an article dedicated entirely to the classification of the Solanum brevicaule complex, written also by Spooner (who is the author of the previous article) it presents a table and a map explaining more in depth this division, there it’s noticeable that the S. stenotomum is registered both in Bolivian and Peruvian locations, further says:

• page 125: Origin of the cultivated potato. HAWKES (1990) hypothesized that the diploid cultivated potato species, S. stenotomum, which grows around Lake Titicaca on the border of Peru and Bolivia, as the original cultivated potato.
• Below says: Because 21 of the 22 examined accessions of cultigens are in Grade A (Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia), it suggests that they originated from populations in this geographic area.

Additionally I found this article written by the PhD. Lauro Luján Claure, I don’t really know if it’s peer-reviewed so I can’t be so sure if it meets the same standards as the previous articles cited but it does focus entirely in the History of the Potato. Based on a previous study of Hawkes Claure says, on page 7:

• el centro de origen de la papa cultivada está en el área comprendida entre los lagos Titicaca y Poopó, en los Departamentos de La Paz y Oruro al Oeste de Bolivia (the center of origin of the potato is in the area between the lakes Titicaca and Poopo, in the departments of La Paz and Oruro to the west of Bolivia).

Leaving that issue aside, I found more information about the Wild potato origins which isn’t mentioned in the article. Apart from going in the same line as the other authors regarding the cultivated potato Hawkes first said that:

• Wild potatoes began to evolve in Mexico and some of these migrated into South America when the land bridge was formed in Pliocene

But last year there was a new discovery in Bolivia suggesting that it could have been originated in South America [4]

• The discovery of S. morelliforme , a disjunct representative of the North and of the Central American diploid clade in South America, adds yet additional data suggesting that section Petota could have had a South American origin.

This is the information I could gather so far about the issue, so I decided to present it to everybody so we can evaluate how this information can be used to complement the article, I should point out that I don’t have a clear position on this matter I’m still in the process of gathering information and reading but I wanted to present this already, else it’d be too long for anyone to fully read. I’m waiting for your opinions. Thank you. Teberald (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Teberald - Your research summary above is nice and constructively interesting. Here are some thoughts, to complement what you have already done: a big step in such research is to examine the question itself - what does origin mean? You may get a different answer if the context is botanical than agriculture, specific breed rather than cultivars, and so on. Some claim that crops such as potato didn't just emerge in one or two places, but was independently invented several times over. For evidence of multiple origins, they present data from plant analysis, geographical breed density, pollen fossils, radiocarbon dating, and DNA sampling. A good resource is the literature of crop archaeology. See, for example, Bruce Smith's The Emergence of Agriculture (http://www.worldcat.org/title/emergence-of-agriculture/oclc/30919253&referer=brief_results), chapter 3 in particular and the references he cites therein. You may find Smith's archaeological photos of potato intriguing.

For a good encyclopedic presentation, what matters is that all important aspects of a topic be presented from a WP:NPOV perspective, without synthesis or WP:OR, each properly cited with reputable sources for verifiability. If the topic is profuse and controversial, perhaps a short summary of origin and the debate should be presented here, with link to a separate main article on origins of potato.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Could you please post the dates to each of the sources? Your Spooner and Miller (1999) article is outdated, and the Lauro Lujan source barely mentions one source from 1994 (and two from 1990) and bases the rest of his article on extremely outdated material (He even cites Guaman Poma).

I would also like to note that I base my interpretation of the Spooner (2005) source, which attributes the origin of cultivated potatoes to southern Peru in his abstract. I don't think that his abstract would contradict his actual research (given that his work was indeed reviewed, for nearly a year, by the publisher).

I have also been reading the following book, published in 2009, "Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology." It clears up many of the questions you posted, and it supports the origin of potatoes in southern Peru in reference to Spooner. Jaspreet Singh and Lovedeep Kaur, Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology (Academic Press, 2009, [5]):

• Page 57: "The place of origin of the group of tuber-bearing potato species has been suggested to be the Mexican/Central American area, where those species are found that are considered to be phylogenetically primitive."

However, this does not mean that wild potatoes originated in Mesoamerica, but rather only a specific mutation. The origin of the wild potato itself is unknown (at least for the time being). The same concept goes for the Bolivian mutation (morelliforme).

• Page 157: "Simmonds (1995) conclude that just a few closely related species in series Tuberosa [...] were domesticated in the Andes of southern Peru and northern Bolivia about 7000 years ago. More recently, Spooner et al. (2005a) have provided evidence for a single domestication in Peru from the northern group of members of the S. brevicaule complex of species. The result of domestication was a diploid species Solanum stenotomum, also referred to as a form of Solanum tuberosum (Group Stenotomum), from which other cultivated species were derived."

The source goes on to mention that from the domesticated southern Peruvian potato is from where all the others (including the Chilean type) originate. It seems that, overtime, scientists have been getting more specific in the location of the domesticated potato. The Peru-Bolivia border seems to have been the closest they got until Spooner's research which specifically places the origin in southern Peru.

In any case, this is my understanding of the matter. Hopefully a scientist can lend a hand in this subject. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your insights, I'll wait some days to reply to leave some time for other editors to contribute. Teberald (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Since no reponse has been given in the past few days, Teberald has taken the question to the RSN ([6]). The main discussion remains here, but anyone following this discussion can also read the one going on at the RSN. Sources and opinions are welcome. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My original intention was to buy some time and address specifically the Spooner article, leaving this topic here in the main page open to gather more sources and discuss what we'll write in the article. I'm sorry that turned into problem between you and Filefoo in RSN but I believe due to the circumstances I should put a banner notifying that the neutrality is disputed. I’ll continue reading and waiting for other more experienced editors provide us some help. Teberald (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You did the right thing sending the question of the sources at the RSN. I am not reprimanding you for it. However, it is generally common to notify the talk page of the discussion when a matter from it is being discussed elsewhere (The only reason I found out about it was because I have the RSN in my watchlist).

That being said, I know Fifelfoo from past discussions, and he is a great editor and expert at sources. Aside from our discrepancy on how to evaluate abstracts, no problem exists between us (from my perspective). I haven't read if he has replied to my message, but I hope he feels the same.

In any case, I repeat that you did the right thing. This discussion is turning out quite interesting. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the Spooner 2005 paper, which is clearly the most reliable of the sources provided. The conclusion is: "Because 21 of the 22 examined accessions of cultigens are in Grade A (Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia), it suggests that they originated from populations in this geographic area." This is pretty much consistent with Hawkes hypothesis that the potato was domesticated somewhere "around Lake Titicaca on the border of Peru and Bolivia", although I get the impression that Spooner is thinking of a slightly larger area that extends further into Peru and Bolivia than just the immediate Lake Titicaca area. In either case, both Hawkes or Spooner say that the area in question extends on both sides of the present-day border. The best phrasing would therefore be that "the potato was domesticated near what is now the border of Peru and Bolivia" or "...in what is today the highlands of Peru and Bolivia". This agrees with both Hawkes and Spooner. It's also is consistent with the Simmonds, Iberia and IPC sources, as well. Saying that the potato was domesticated (only) in Peru or (only) in Bolivia is not supported by any reliable source.

To be very clear, the statement that "The Peru-Bolivia border seems to have been the closest they got until Spooner's research which specifically places the origin in southern Peru" is not supported by or consitent with the Spooner article, and is OR/SYNTH, and an abuse of the source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote you provide above is nowhere to be found on the Spooner (2005) source. In 2007, Spooner made yet another investigation in which he again repeats that the area of origin was in southern Peru. Sorry, but Bolivia is not part of southern Peru. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry I didn't feel reprimanded, it’s just that I think after someone is called “ludicrous and obscene” it becomes quite difficult to maintain an academic debate, actually I think it was kind of funny if I look back to it I never seen a reaction like that before. However it seems that the matter escalated more than I had anticipated, it becomes hard to follow what is being discussed on RSN with my work and everything but I’ll try to read it patiently. But I agree that this has become interesting I learned a lot about genetics and the potato, sometimes I feel perhaps I should get a “Phylogenetics studies for dummies” though. Teberald (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Spooner (2005) article, as I understand it, says that the potato has been domesticated through a single domestication event, and this event used a progenitor from the northern clade of S. brevicaule complex. It also says that, at the present time, species in this clade are found exclusively they taste like Pepsi

However, Spooner goes on to hedge his results somewhat by saying that the numerous species within the northern clade of S. brevicaule poorly align with genetic data, and therefore all he's willing to say at this time is that the progenitor of the domestic potato is somewhere within that clade. He also says that the origin was located "in the broad area of southern Peru". Since the article makes no explicit attempt to pinpoint the origin of the potato beyond the northern clade of S. brevicaule, I have to conclude that, by "southern Peru", he really means the entire areal of the clade, from Ancash region to the north to parts of Bolivia to the south. This amount of hedging seems excessive to me. I need to check further articles on this subject.--Itinerant1 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Itinerant. I still wonder why Spooner would simply use the term "southern Peru" instead of something broader (ie, "southern Peru and northwestern Bolivia"). Adding that last part on Bolivia does not seem like it would take away from the text, and I doubt he had a word limit. Might you have an insight on that? In other words, what if by "southern Peru" he actually does mean just southern Peru?

Here is another source that I think is relevant to this "mystery". It's more recent, from 2011. Ramsay and Glenn Bryan, "Solanum," in Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources: Vegetables, edited by Chittaranjan Kole (Springer, 2011, [7]). Page 264 has the following:

• Spooner et al. (2005) published a large-scale study using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. A total of 438 AFLP polymorphisms were assayed on 362 wild and 98 landrace accessions of potato from the Commonwealth Potato Collection and the USDA Potato Genebank at Sturgeon Bay. Cladograms were presented using Wagner parsimony methods, and these demonstrated a clustering of the majority of the accessions in the study into two clades representing the northern and southern S. brevicaule complexs, the main groups of species found in Peru and Bolivia plus Argentina, respectively. All the land-race accessions in the study clustered with the northern group and in particular a group of species from southern Peru. [...] Together, these studies indicate that the original domestication event took place in central or southern Peru at an altitude of around 3,000-4,300 m, that the original domesticates formed hybrids with other Andean wild species after migration under domestication, and that backcrossing has yielded new combinations of mostly Peruvian nuclear DNA with a range of different cytoplasms, including a relatively distant event to generate the nuclear-cytoplasmic combination found in most Chilean and European potatoes.

At WP:RS/N, Andrew Lancaster stated that the source was okay to use as long as the authors are not unknown. A more direct link to Lancaster's statement ([ ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Concerning_the_Ramsay_and_Bryan_.282011.29_source]). This 2011 source, from my understanding, seems to be taking the potato's domestication as in central or southern Peru. The interesting part is that the usage of "southern Peru" once again comes up. Clearly, southern Peru is right next to Bolivia. What exactly is meant by southern Peru? Perhaps we should try to contact Spooner? I've googled him, and I think this is him: [8]. There several David Spooners, but this one seems to be the correct one (professor of horticulture, and it even mentions the potatoes & tomatoes research which Teberald provided).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the David Spooner we're talking about, among his publications are all the references we have been talking about. I'm really confused regarding the wording used, I kind of think there is a tradition to call the northern clade the "peruvian" one, that's why most authors use it commonly but still have my doubts about the exact frontier of that classification, the region where the andean civilizations may have started to cultivate potato could easily cross the frontier by few kilometers or not, but that's just mere speculation. But following that logic based on Ramsay and Glenn Bryan, it'd be the S. canasense the specie of potato that was first cultivated, and those can be found in Ayacucho, Cuzco, Puno in Peru and La Paz, in Bolivia, according to the classification I found earlier Spooner's "Collapse of species boundaries in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (Solanaceae, S. sect. Petota): molecular data", I don't know how often these classifications and labels change. But that'd make a lot of sense since preciselly those are the places were the most ancient Andean civilizations arose. Teberald (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

True; the Middle Kingdoms (Wari & Tiwanaku) were close to those places. I think that the best thing we can do at this time is contact Spooner (he has an e-mail, luckily), and get his interpretation of his work. Specifically, ask him what he means by "southern Peru" and if that includes northwestern Bolivia. I'll send him an e-mail in a day or two (alternatively, anyone else can send him an e-mail earlier if they want). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, well I can write him now here is what I wrote, tell me if it's clear enough:

• Dr. David Spooner

First of all, I would like to express my admiration for your impressive career and the advances you have made in the research of the potatoes.

The purpose of this email is to solicit you a brief explanation of your 2005 work “A single domestication for potato based on multilocus AFLP genotyping” and the studies conducted later about this matter.

There is a debate on the site Wikipedia.org regarding this study and its implications, specifically the concrete national frontiers of your discovery. We would like to ask you if the origins of the cultivated potato limit themselves without any doubt exclusively to the current Peruvian frontiers or if they cover part of the current northwestern Bolivian territory near the area of the Lake Titicaca or elsewhere outside the Peruvian frontiers. There are different interpretations about this matter and perhaps only you can provide us a definitive answer.

If you would like to consult the debate the links are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potato#Origin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS/N#Using_the_abstract_or_full_body_of_an_article

Thank you in advance for your time, your help would be greatly appreciated.

Let's wait hopefully he has time to reply to us. Teberald (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! I am sure he will reply. He will probably be surprised we have had such a long discussion about him. His reply will be extremely important for the article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I finally received a reply from Dr Spooner, I think this will clarify all doubts, here is what he said (I ommited my name for privacy reasons):

• yes, certainly the origin area could include extreme northwestern Bolivia as I outlined in my paper showing the taxonomic limits of the northern and southern elements of the Solsnumk brevicaule group, with the northern group, that gave rise to cultivated potato, distributed in southern Peru and extreme northwestern Bolivia.

Please go the publications link of my website and download the following articles that document this.

http://www.horticulture.wisc.edu/DavidSpooner

Van den Berg, R.G., J.T. Miller, M.L. Ugarte, J.P. Kardolus, J. Villand, J. Nienhuis, and D.M. Spooner. 1998. Collapse of morphological species in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (sect. Petota). Amer. J. Bot. 85:92-109.

Miller, J.T. and D.M. Spooner. 1999. Collapse of species boundaries in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (Solanaceae, S. sect. Petota): molecular data. Plant Syst. Evol. 214:103-130.

Spooner, D.M., K. McLean, G. Ramsay, R. Waugh, and G.J. Bryan. 2005. A single domestication for potato based on multilocus AFLP genotyping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102:14694-14699.

Sincerely, David Spooner.

Teberald (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, that clears up the matter. Then, is everyone okay with including the domestication as "southern Peru and extreme northwestern Bolivia"? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, so I think that's it, everything is perfect now. I've made some few changes and added some references and corrected the link for Dr Spooner's article since the other one was dead. It was nice working with this. Cheers Teberald (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Genetics: Tomato and Potato

Oh and also I found this source about the evolutionary history perhaps it could be useful it says:

• Finally, we determined that there is not a single evolutionary history for potato and tomato, as at least three different possible histories were revealed. More loci would be needed to discern the distribution of gene genealogies in more depth, and thus detect which mechanism most likely shaped discordance among individual COSII.

Rodriguez, F.; Wu, F.; Ané, C. C.; Tanksley, S.; Spooner, D. M. (2009). "Do potatoes and tomatoes have a single evolutionary history, and what proportion of the genome supports this history?". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 9: 191. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-191. PMC 3087518. PMID 19664206.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Teberald (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an awesome source but, ugh, what does it mean?

My understanding: it mean that potatoes and tomatoes are not evolutionary related.

I suppose that's an interesting point which the article could address...but does it relate to our discussion?

I get my conclusion based on their purpose statement: "The purpose of our study is to test a diverse range of COSII markers and data analyses for phylogenetic reconstruction in the sister clades tomato and potato. The phylogenetic relationships between and among species from these two groups have been the subject of study by many researchers, but these relationships remain unresolved because of the use of a limited number of molecular markers."

Added that our discussion relates to potato domestication, and its spread from that point on. I notice that the source you bring, let's call it "Rodriguez et al. (2009)," is dealing with wild potatoes. Wild species' origins are much more difficult to find.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm exactly in the same dilemma because I really don't understand what is it really saying, that's why I brought it here perhaps for someone it would be more clear, but I'm still collecting. (And "technically" there is a bot that will fill the citation in some minutes, I don't know how it works I just found that template to save me the time to fill it, I'm quite lost in here). Teberald (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering we're both lost, your interpretation is just as valid as mine. What do you think it means?

That being said, it is an important source. If it means what I think it means, it's quite relevant for the "Genetics" section.

I've always wondered if tomatoes and potatoes are related (aside from the name, they do look similar). However, based on your source, it seems that they are not related at all (at least from current information). Of course, that is assuming my interpreation is correct.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it means that apparently there are two new hypotheses regarding the evolution of the potato and tomato and they are quite in the same problem because there isn't enough statistical data to know exactly which path of evolution is the correct. But I really think in any case that'd be just a note in the genetics section. Teberald (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's also a valid way to see things. Given that we both think it should go on "Genetics", would you agree to me moving this discussion into another section? (I will do it now, but you can change it, if you don't agree).

As to the "domestication" discussion, aside from Dominus and Fifelfoo, we haven't got any other opinion out of it. Dominus hasn't replied to my last message either. I suppose we can give it more time?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it looks more ordered, I think these things require more time, not everybody can log in everyday and read all the sources quickly, besides there is plenty of information to digest there. Teberald (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Waiting is the best thing we can do at the time.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

why can't we edit this?--User:512bits

The article is locked for IP addresses and recent users due to vandalism. If you would like any specific changes to be made, please use the "New Section" tab at the top of this talk page in order to compose a message. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

People fight over a potato article?512bits (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends by what you mean "fight". Vandalism is disrupting articles without caring what anyone else thinks. Wikipedia is a group project, and you should often use the talk page to discuss your edits (explain why you are doing them).

Discussions take place in talk pages, but oftentimes they become heated. However, civility should prevail. The problem is that some editors don't like to discuss topics. Discussions involve the usage of sources; that's what ultimately determines the strength of your argument (not how rowdy or lengthy you make your case).

However, the reason the page is locked is due to vandalism. If you want to edit this page, you'll need to wait a few days and get some more edits on other articles (to build your credibility). After that, you will see that you can edit it like other "veteran" editors (whatever that is supposed to mean). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see colons make indents. Hmmm...So you're talking more wanton disruption as opposed to arguments of what an article should say, though I'm sure that often occurs too.512bits (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's enough to say, roughly put, that some bored middle school boys like posting graffiti to articles about the staple plants and livestock which go into the foods they eat. It's not a big deal at all, but most of those articles do wind up locked to IP edits as a way to save the time of volunteer editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request- BCE and CE instead of BC and AD

Please can we use BCE (before common era) and CE (common era) instead of BC (before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini)? BC and AD are especially problematic terms when discussing pre-Columbian peoples etc. 86.4.129.213 (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this. The reason you give is compelling, and according to WP:ERA, we shouldn't change from one system to the other unless there's consensus to do so and a good reason. If others agree here, then we can change it. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how using BC or BCE is "problematic" for pre-Columbian peoples. Despite the meaning of "BC" and "AD", most people use it without ever thinking of the meaning. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that the result of this discussion was a consensus that there was a good reason to change to BCE. I have therefore reverted a change made in August 2012, and restored "BC" per WP:ERA. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Request photo of a potato plant's root structure

Can anyone contribute a photograph or diagram of the root structure of a typical mature potato plant? I am ashamed to admit that despite having multiple university degrees, I still don't exactly know where a potato comes from. I get that it is an outgrowth of the root structure (or rather, I guess, something about stolons developing from lower leaf axils...), but that doesn't entirely answer the question. Also: 1) How many potatoes are typically found on a single mature plant? 1? 100? 2) I assume that when I look at a supermarket potato, it was once attached to the plant by one of its eyes. But some potatoes don't seem to have any eyes, or they are tiny in relation to its size, making it hard to imagine a plant with tiny threads connected to massive potatoes. And some potatoes have many eyes. Is there something like the distinction between an axon and dendrites for a potato (afferent versus efferent connections, as far as nutrient transport)? 128.151.80.182 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a free image at the moment, but this is a reasonable diagram showing where the roots are in relation to the tubers (potatoes). Potatoes are botanically quite bizarre - the tubers are a swollen shoot (stolon) rather than a root. This demonstrates it nicely - a disease causes tubers to form above ground. Tubers only develop in the top ~30 cm of the soil, whereas the roots can go as deep as 1 m.

1. It depends on the variety - bakers ~5, normal ~10, salad ~20.
2. If you look at the potatoes you've bought, you should be able to see at one end a small area where the tuber was attached to a stem when it was in the soil. This shows them attached to the plant and here is a detached photo - the tuber would have been attached on the left hand side. The potato eyes are the new shoots that develop into stems the next year.
3. You should grow your own potatoes - they're amazing! SmartSE (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Acadian râpée

The current description is: A traditional Acadian dish from New Brunswick is known as poutine râpée. Acadian poutine is a ball of grated and mashed potato, salted, sometimes filled with pork in the center, and boiled. The result is a moist ball about the size of a baseball. It is commonly eaten with salt and pepper or brown sugar.

Since this meal is a family tradition, I could describe it as: A traditional Acadian dish from New Brunswick is known as poutine râpée. Acadian poutine is a ball of grated and mashed potato, salted, sometimes filled with pork in the center, and boiled. The result is a moist ball about the size of a baseball. It is commonly eaten with salt and pepper or brown sugar. A similar Acadian dish is known as [Pie] is made by grinding raw potatoes and draining out the liquids. The resulting paste is reconstituted with chicken/pork or clam broth, mixed with the appropriate meats and baked in the oven like a large casserole.

Here is a picture of the dish, fresh out of the oven. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rappie_Pie_Casserole.jpg

DPDoucette (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Split out History of the potato. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I would like to see the article split into:

• Solanum tuberosum - currently a redir
• History of the potato - reverted and now a redir
• Nutrition of potatoes

The article it too long and some information is best split out and summarised here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose splitting nutrition info, have no objections to splitting genetics/species and history part (with a summary here). Nutrition part is small, and integral to any food/crop related article. Splitting can cause redundancy and WP:CFORK issues. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the way History of the potato has been split off - it makes the article worse, not better when 16,000 characters are replaced with a couple of sentences. I agree that parts of the article need splitting off at some point, but please write a proper summary before doing so - as you surely know there is no deadline. SmartSE (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I commented in the edit summary the remaining text could do with expanding. I am hoping a more informed editor than myself would run with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My split has been reverted. I have now placed a split tag in the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article as it stands is a bit lengthy, but I also agree with SmartSE. You need to be responsible for how you leave an adequate summary here. You can't expect another editor to do the grunt work.

I oppose splitting anything else aside from history.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that you did not revert all the information. I had move stuff from the lede to the new history section and it is now no longer present. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason for proposing it properly first and gaining consensus before being bold in terms of massive edits like this. Intervening edits mean I can't just revert it to the previous version. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would Support splitting off the history of the Potato but I am less convinced about any other splits at this time but would be happy to look at additional proposals once a new stable version had been established.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support splitting off the history section, but everything else should stay.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request: The Potato Association of America Handbook

Please, add a link to the informative "Commercial Potato Production in North America: The Potato Association of America Handbook" http://potatoassociation.org/documents/A_ProductionHandbook_Final_000.pdf. The 85-page handbook is written by multiple professors and covers many different potato related topics. It can also be used as a source. --80.220.79.97 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the Further reading section, though it might be more visible in the External links section. It's certainly very useful.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition

The glycemic index does vary across potatoes. But in the cited abstract, it was high except for boiled red potatoes consumed cold.

Who eats boiled red potatoes consumed cold? In the vast majority of cases, potatoes have a high glycemic index, and this article should acknowledge that. Even the boiled red potatoes consumed cold were a 56.

24.25.58.241 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Processing has a dramatic impact on the resistant starch content of potatoes. According to a 2000 paper by A. Garcia-Alonso and I. Goni If raw, they contain 69% RS2 resistant starch. When boiled, the starch gelatinizes or cooks out, leaving only 1.2% resistant starch. If the boiled potato is allowed to cool, the glucose chains crystallize and become retrograded, increasing to 4.6% RS3 resistant starch. If the potato starch is autoclaved and then cooled, it leaves 10.4% RS3 resistant starch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueenFiber (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Monalisa

The Link on the Monalisa variety doesn't make sense. --87.144.126.231 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

An odd statement that could apply to any food

"Humans can actually survive healthily on a diet of potatoes supplemented only with milk or butter" seems to be quite a silly statement. Humans, like all mammmals can survive just on the milk can they not? You could substitute any food for the patato and that statement would still be true. Or am I missing something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Survive healthily" is the difference, and the statement is cited by two reliable sources.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to Late blight (Phytophthora infestans)

I see this article has more than 10 references to Late blight (which caused the potato famine), but not a link to the related article Late blight

So I would propose to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvanoers (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests

re: Storage My potatoes last WEEKS plural, not just 1-2 weeks, when stored properly.

re: Reference #61 No longer exists. Same information should be available elsewhere, many sources. Maybe because I have Horticulture Minor from University of Guelph Ontario Canada, but seems common knowledge to me that many fruits, not just pears, produce ethylene gas that can ripen other fruits if enclosed in the same area.

re: Russet varieties Sub-varieties are listed, such as Russet Burbank, but not overall Russet.

Overall fascinating article and subject. Maybe time for a ref check? AnEyeSpy (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• All material sourced to ref 61 has been removed as possible sneaky vandalism. Abductive (reasoning) 06:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• The structure of the list of varieties needs work. It should be broken up by main types. Abductive (reasoning) 06:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional Faff about wild potatoes distrubtion

From the american journal of Botany

Like to PDF File itself: http://www.amjbot.org/content/88/11/2101.full.pdf+html Link to abstract http://www.amjbot.org/content/88/11/2101.abstract The charts on it may be useful for the wild potato bit.

Sipharu (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Sipharu, added 4-18-13

Hello. The link to the 'Monalisa' potato under the list of potato varieties links to the 'Mona Lisa' (painting) entry. There is currently no Monalisa potato entry. The disambiguation entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(disambiguation)

Thanks! Dsc prodigy (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Removed incorrect link. Per WP:INTDAB it's not appropriate to link to a disambiguation page. If you'd like a link there, feel free to create an article about the Monalisa potato. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 19:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - popular varieties

Two major varieties stand out as missing from the list: Katahdin and Green Mountain. A web search will quickly justify these choices. Xerlome (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013

Under the section Nutrition BELOW
=== Comparison to other major staple foods ===

Please change the second sentence's structure FROM
Raw staples are not commonly eaten raw and are usually sprouted or cooked before eating.

TO
Staple foods are not commonly eaten raw and are usually sprouted or cooked before eating.

Amovitz (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Fibre

It would be helpful if the section on how much fibre potatoes have in them (its in the table of their nutritional values) clarified whether the fibre was soluble or insoluble fibre. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

CSIRO = "unreliable source"? ?

For the reader's convenience, the "unreliable source?" tag to which I refer is under the Toxicity subheading, and is presented after the citation that links to this url: http://www.csiro.au/resources/green-potatoes

I do not understand why there is a note that questions the reliability of a citation that directs to a webpage published by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation--Australia's national science agency--regarding greening in potatoes as an indicator of elevated toxins.

The information provided by CSIRO is consistent with information one will receive from any reputable scientist with a knowledge of the biochemistry of potatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.61.201 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The section on nutrition says that a diet of potatoes and milk is sufficient, but an (unverified) article in the Straight Dope claims that such a diet is deficient in molybdenum. Could a knowledgeable nutritionist verify this? See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2828/could-i-survive-on-nothing-but-potatoes-and-milk

Gezzed (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that sentence was there at all. WIkipedia is not a diet manual and this was not supported by medically sound sources. pls see WP:MEDRS and WP:NOT for further reasoning. Thanks for pointing out the problem! Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Consistency errors

In the overview it says that "due to selective breeding there are now over a thousand different types of potatoes". Then, in the section genetics, it says that there are about 5000. I don't know which is the correct figure, so I am not going to attempt to correct it, but I think someone should get on to it. Thanks! Dasyuridae (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Dasyuridae

Edit: I looked it up on http://www.potato2008.org/en/potato/varieties.html and on potato number 15 it says that more than 5000 native varieties of potato are still grown in the Andes, which would mean that both of the above statements are wrong. Discuss! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasyuridae (talk • contribs) 07:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for language

The article contains a language error, 'and/or', it should be 'and' or 'or'. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

and/or isn't an error. SmartSE (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Smartse. That user has been going around and changing that in a bunch of articles. Idiosyncratic, and no justification in MOS or other guideline/policy as far as I know. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with other staple foods

I don't think our current table comparing potatoes with other staples is particularly useful to readers as it compares dry cereals with fresh potatoes. It's transcluded here as a template, but in case any one is interested, I've started a thread here. 13:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - art section

To Art section please add the following: "Probably the biggest monument solely to potato is located in Biesiekierz, Poland.. This shows importance of potato in Polish cuisine and economy, where potatoes and "kotlet schabowy"(usually a pork cutlet in a coating, dished up with potatoes) are one of the most popular and important meals in Poland.

 Done I did a bit of copyediting and used the English version of the first source. If the Polish version is better, feel free to set the request to unanswered for someone to change it back. The |language=pl parameter can easily be set in the citation template. —PC-XT+ 10:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant to comment on this before... I've reverted this addition as it is WP:UNDUE and poorly sourced. The first source is a from a tourist office and the second two are about food, rather than art. I've looked for better sources about the monument but can't find any. Considering all that has been written about potatoes, this seems like an insignificant detail. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good call. I almost removed the last half of the paragraph, myself. If there are no more sources for the first part, it should be removed. —PC-XT+ 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

The potato (also known as spud) is a starchy 86.172.15.236 (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Ture, but you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This article or section may be Overly British. Americans may not understand humour, only humor. Canadians and Australians may not understand anything at all. Don't change a thing to remedy this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.73.130 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at reference number ten please?

I dont know if spam or something but it seems awfuly danged suspicious to me. 75.40.98.1 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Etainne

 Fixed It was a genuine source, but someone had added spam to the end of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutrient content over time

Re this content that I removed and was then replaced by User:Rjensen. The main problem with this is the source - the analysis was done by the Globe and Mail with no information about the methodology and it was obviously not peer-reviewed. They don't even report the absolute values, only the percentage change. The source even questions itself "But some experts said the explanation for the decline might be found in testing and sampling methods." Putting my OR hat on, the problem with such an analysis anyway is determining what an average potato is! Just taking an example of a recently published source, there was around 10-fold variation in the vitamin C content of different varieties and also some large year-to-year variations, so it would take a great deal of data to reach a conclusion that they were falling over time. It's been 13 years since this source was published, and if it is truly reliable there would be scholarly articles by now. I've looked and not been able to find them, so unless they are found, I think this should be removed. (And FWIW, I hadn't even noticed the Reddit TIL until just now when I was searching for better sources. Potatoes aren't known as a source of vitamin A (just check the table or this) and so losing 100 % of very little or none, is pretty meaningless.) SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Smartse is relying on his own private opinions regarding statistical methodology, which is not allowed by Wiki rules. The Globe & Mail states: "To conduct the analysis, The Globe and Mail and CTV examined food tables that were prepared by government researchers in 1951, 1972 and 1999, and compared the nutrients available from 100 grams of the given food. The results were almost identical to similar research conducted in the United States and Britain. The U.K. research was published in the British Food Journal, a peer-reviewed, scientific publication, while the U.S. data have been published only in alternative-health journals." which is to say they relied on RS to report the news. Rjensen (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

no, i agree with smartse. if that were real then it would be discussed in scientific review articles. Rjensen, can provide any such citations? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The source refers to RS yes but which ones? Editing requires judgement and while content needs to be verifiable, not every piece of information belongs here just because it is verifiable. That the source doesn't mention how little vit a, ca or fe used to be in potatoes demonstrates that they don't know what they're talking about! If you think otherwise the burden is on you to find the sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So I've had more of a look and this is the best source on potatoes I can find although it only talks about mineral nutrients rather than vitamins. It presents data showing that yield had no effect on nutrient content, which is one the main hypothesis behind why nutrient concentrations have supposedly fallen. More generally, this paper concluded "There were insufficient data to determine if the mineral composition of any single edible horticultural species had altered significantly over time either in the UK or in the USA." This topic probably merits it's own article, but this further demonstrates the problems with the source. SmartSE (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

In the nutritional info table, there's an entry between Niacin and Vitamin B6 that looks like a typographical error. It says "line-height:1.1em". Can you please update this with the correct information? Sustainingsheep (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be "pantothenic acid," but something about the table's mechanics won't let me correct it directly.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. it was a problem in the infobox template. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Add hyperlink

Hyperlink is needed on some words Vivienord13 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Which words? SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

McDonald's reference is misleading.

It is claimed that russets are valued by eg McDonald's for fries as they yield long slices. That benefits others, but McDonalds' fries are extruded, not cut, so size is moot.Cthulhu11 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Size Does Matter Bigger taters produce more fries. 172.56.13.28 (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Tater Tots

Are tater tots another form of fries? 172.56.13.28 (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No. --Bod (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Irish potato

To me this means the firm-fleshed, smaller varieties, rather than the ones (russeted and larger) ideal for baked potato and mashed potato. Anyone else? --Bod (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. 'Irish' is used to distinguish Solanum tuberosum from sweet potato in areas where both are cultivated. All S. tuberosum are considered 'Irish'. See for example the usage here: [9] [www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJAR/article-abstract/276971A33009] [10]. The last explicity lists Russet Burbank as Irish. SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Toys Based on the Potato

Why are there no mentions to toys based on the Potato like a Potato Head, and references to Potatoes in popular culture, like the myriad of Movies, Television Dhows, and Comic Books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.41.49 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)