Editing Talk:2827: Brassica

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
You can also get pretty good mileage from claiming random things (like peaches, corn, or Skittles) are actually a type of berry. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.40|172.69.247.40]] 00:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
:I've done that with corn before. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.76|172.69.134.76]] 01:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
:Easier (and often ''more'' accurate than expectations) to suggest that any number of 'berries' are not a berry (but, typically, a {{w|drupe}} or {{w|Aggregate fruit|aggregate druplets/composite/etc}}), or similar with various (most?) type of 'nuts' that really aren't.
:But of course loganberries and most types of pine nut ''are'', indeed, brassicas!{{Actual citation needed}} [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.20|172.71.242.20]] 05:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
: You can get even more milage by claiming that _technically_ random berry isn't a berry[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.135|172.71.246.135]] 20:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This is like the ridiculous claims that birds descended from dinosaurs and whales from hippos. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
:What do you mean "ridiculous"? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.229|172.70.100.229]] 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
:The poster was using the word "ridiculous" in the usual sense, but they omitted the "ironic" tag. [[User:Kelvin128|Kelvin128]] ([[User talk:Kelvin128|talk]]) 14:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
::<span style="jest: in">Well, the <irony>...</irony> element and tags haven't actually been fully supported since HTML Internet Draft 1.2, and I don't think has ever had a MediaWiki markup equivalent.</span> [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.221|141.101.98.221]] 15:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a category/tag for "Experts misleading the public" or "Experts manufacturing false facts"? Feels like a common theme. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.121|172.71.22.121]] 10:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

''to which many vegetables that we eat belong'' speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure neither tomato nor potato is Brassica oleracea. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:But what about the tomahto and potahto? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.143|172.70.90.143]] 05:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

'''One of the issues with defining which plants are what is the definition of a ''tree'''''. It's disputed a lot, one of those "I know one when I see one" type issues, but it's relevant here because the decision of what is a tree and what isn't is fluid and changes country to country (and even state to state https://www.rgc.net.au/post/what-is-a-tree) and depends on legal definitions rather than phylogenetic ones. https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/. Brassica, on the other hand, IS a genetic definition. I tried to point out the differences and similarities but someone edited it away again, so I figured I’d add it in here. If anyone would like to re-add, I see it as relevant that although we can randomly redefine various large plants as trees, we cannot randomly redefine various broccoli-like plants as brassica. [[User:Thisfox|Thisfox]] ([[User talk:Thisfox|talk]]) 07:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Redwoods contain no resin.  They do contain tanins, as does red wine. I am reluctant to edit the article but someone with that skill might want to change the line:
" "Resinous" is probably a more apt adjective than "delicious", and they're probably woody...."
to something like
""Delicious" might be an apt adjective as Sequoias, like red wine, have a high content of tannins, including polyphenols, but unlike wine this variety of brussels spounts would probably still be quite woody. Because of their height, the taste, like a Zinfandel, might have a long finish" 

(reference to lack of resins in redwoods: 
"Redwoods, however, contain neither pitch nor resin...".  
and 
"The Redwoods have a high percentage of tannin, and this gives both the bark and the heartwood a reddish color during the life of the tree...." 
both from from https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/shirley/sec6.htm) 
[[User:WWCODY|WWCODY]] ([[User talk:WWCODY|talk]]) 21:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

:Presumably that article is correct as to redwoods’ lack of resin, but it inspires *very* little confidence with “Fungi are colorless plants … .” [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The statement is backed up by articles such as this:  https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr095/psw_gtr095_piirto.pdf. "There is little ether-soluble material (less than 1 percent) in
coast redwood indicating the absence of fats, waxes, oils, and
resinous substances. However, terpenoids (e.g., alpha pinene
and various resin acids) have been reported (Anderson and others 1968a,b) within a sticky viscous resin found in open pockets of
coast redwood. Similarly, a resinous, sticky material has been
observed on the fire scars of giant sequoia (Piirto 1977). "[[User:WWCODY|WWCODY]] ([[User talk:WWCODY|talk]]) 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)