From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Known only as beetroot in the UK[edit]

Almost exclusively eaten cooked and cold in salads here. Can often be bought ready cooked (and cold), often sealed in plastic, or pickled in jars. (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in Canada, I have never heard it called "Garden beet" ... only Beetroot (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
English beetroot is rounder (moe globular) than the roots in the current picture - see for illustration. Not quite sure if that's worth mentioning, but the shape of the roots just looked wrong to me. -- (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the usual problem of American editors refusing to accept that their local naming conventions aren't used anywhere else. See the rutabaga talk page as a further example. Even now the article still claims beetroot is also known as the table beet, garden beet, red beet or informally simply as beet. Not outside the US it isn't. --Ef80 (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and I've never heard it referred to as beetroot, always and only beet. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How dare a people from another country an ocean away and on a different continent come up with a name for a damned vegetable that isn't the same as that used by the knowitall British. Americans don't mind that the British say beetroot while they use beet, but it sure seems to put British knickers in a twist. BTW, I already knew we (Americans) said beet and the British used beetroot while you Ef apparently didn't. With more than six and a half (6.5) thousand million (billion to Americans, whoops we did it again) people outside the U.S. it takes a special arrogance to claim to know what name they'll use or not use for a certain item. My name is Al Cook and I live in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Name change to beetroot[edit]

My understanding of article naming is that the most common name will generally be used unless other factors are involved. Google gives: Beetroot - 1,440,000 hits Garden beet - 49,600 hits

"Beetroot" is 30 times more common than "Garden beet"

Unless the existence of "other factors" can be shown here then the name of this article needs to be changed.

I've moved it. Sanity prevails. Bazonka (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
5 years later. Beetroot: 2,300,000; Beet: 8.960.000; Beets: 4.500.000. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Baked beetroot[edit]

My mother (in the UK) was very fond of beets as a baked/roast vegetable. FWIW a Google search on baked beetroot give around 270,000 hits, boiled beetroot give approx. 160,000. Should it be added? (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Beta vulgaris[edit]

The articles Beet, Beetroot and Chard should be merged into a single article under the title "Beta vulgaris". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No. They may be related, but they're not the same. Bazonka (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

..."The green, leafy portion of the beet is also edible. "[edit]

The next sentence talks about cooking it. However, here in Oztralia young beetroot leaves are served raw in a salad, b oth for taste and for colour. May I go ahead and include that in the article? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


In the section on effects it says that betaine "is important for cardiovascular health" and that homocysteine "can be harmful to blood vessels and thus contribute to the development of heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease".

There's a citation for this and I looked it up ( It says "researchers don't yet know exactly how high levels of homocysteine and heart disease are related" and "scientists don't yet know whether homocysteine itself is harmful, or whether it is just an indicator of increased risk for heart disease". I don't think this citation actually supports the claims I refer to. It doesn't say whether homocysteine is a risk factor or a marker of risk burden. It actually says they don't know either way.

I've seen a paper that concluded that adjusting for renal function "eliminates the relationship between tHcy and markers of vascular risk in subjects with proven cerebrovascular disease" and that "Our data are thus consistent with the hypothesis that mild renal impairment is an independent risk factor for vascular disease and elevated tHcy simply a marker for reduced GFR. The underlying relationship between tHcy and renal function is not altered by long-term B-vitamin supplementation and it is possible that, by treating homocysteine, we may be shooting the messenger rather than attacking the true risk factor."

I think that those claims I've highlighted are controversial at best (from the various scientific papers I've seen, I get the impression they have actually been disproved) and that they were never supported by the reference cited. Prak Mann (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving current beet article to Beta vulgaris, redirect beet here[edit]

I've proposed moving Beet to the scientific name, Beta vulgaris, and redirecting Beet to this article. Please comment here: Talk:Beet#Requested movePlantdrew (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

possible error[edit]

I apologize if this is the wrong place to say this i am new to the wiki community. I believe the information from Source: USDA Nutrient Database( is incorrect due to a typo. the value size is per 100g. should this be per 10g? According to nutritional facts from many other sites would suggest this to be the case.

SynthSyn (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Although 10 g may seem like a more practical serving size for meal consumption, it is standard in science, nutrition and the USDA nutrient tables to express individual nutrient content per 100 g, as displayed in the Article table. One company, Conde Nast, publishes a detailed analysis of Nutrition Facts which can be displayed for different serving sizes via the pick list under the food title, shown here.[1] --Zefr (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

How to show cultivar names[edit]

Before we start an edit war, I'd like to better understand the WP:CULTIVAR standard. My take on it is enclosing the cultivar name in quotes is only needed if the genus, or genus x species, is specified with it. Since the cultivar names are given by themselves, I don't see the need for quotes. There's lots of articles listing variety names that don't use quotes, for example List of sweetcorn varieties. n2xjk (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just added a citation to the ICNCP to WP:CULTIVAR, to make it easier to check. This convention is rather new, as can be seen in the code of nomenclature, which mentions earlier use of cv. and var. A lot of otherwise quite authoritative literature still says "variety" when "cultivar" is meant, thus continuing the confusion with Variety (botany). I'd say that in this case the species name is implicit from the topic of the page, so that it's okay to list Beta vulgaris 'Crosby's Egyptian' as simply 'Crosby's Egyptian', but the quotes make it clear that it is a cultivar and not an informal designation. By that reasoning, List of sweetcorn varieties is poorly named and not well typeset for an encyclopedia; it's quite informal and could be polished. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Beetroot dye may also be used in ink"[edit]

A google search for "is beetroot dye used in ink" returns a result from, giving recipes for beetroot-based ink. Is this an acceptable source, and should I cite it? Benjamaster1 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

BeetrootBeet – In American English, the root of the plant is called beet, and no part of it is called beetroot. In the UK, to the besdt of my knoledge, the leaves are refered to as "beet". Since this article is about the whole plant, I think that beet is a better name for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Don't the first 6 words indicate this article is about the taproot, not the plant as a whole? Stickee (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here in England "beetroot" means the root, or the whole plant, of the magenta-colored variety used in salad, not sugar beet or fodder beet etc, including in uses such as "beetroot seedlings" where the rootstock has not developed yet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that the suggested move would also cause confusion with the likes of Beta vulgaris also called beet. See also Beet (disambiguation) and Beets (disambiguation). I don't think that an American spelling related to this topic comes any where close to a justification of WP:primary and think that the WP:natural disambiguation works best. Gregkaye 13:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLECHANGES. Beetroot was originally a redirect to Beet[2], then changed to redirect to Garden beet[3], and was eventually overwritten with the content of that article[4], all apparently unilaterally without ever achieving community consensus support. Now that the article about the plant has been moved from Beet to Beta vulgaris, it makes sense to have this article be at Beet. --В²C 20:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No, the article is only about the root. It says that in the first line. So under WP:ENGVAR it should stay as is. Yes, it was originally a redirect, but since it's been stable for over five years and nobody has worried about it I don't think that's a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The topic of this article (the root of the beet) is referred to as "beet" in all variants of English; it is referred to as "beetroot" in only some variants. Therefore, we should use the more common name. --В²C 17:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This is patently untrue. In British English, we never refer to the plant as a "beet". When I hear "beet", I think of the sugar beet. RGloucester 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose to avoid a source of confusion. In both US and British English, "beet" can mean any variety of Beta vulgaris, while "beetroot" means the red-rooted variant or the root thereof, unfortunately only in British English. The following table is distilled from Oxford university press on-line dictionaries:
beet beetroot
The dark red root US British
The plant with the dark red root US British
Any Beta vulgaris British, US -
Olli Niemitalo (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To avoid a source of confusion. The article say:-The beetroot is the taproot portion of the beet plant, - so it is quite right title. Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per the above mentions of "confusion", but also per MOS:RETAIN and WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no good reason for a change, here. The present title is correct, and it avoids the ambiguity of "beet". When I hear "beet", I think of the sugar beet. I've never heard beetroot called a "beet". Leave this alone. RGloucester 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly - it is what it is - beet is Beta vulgaris. Hafspajen (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per the above mention of the clarity of that first sentence "The beetroot is the taproot portion of the beet plant" and because statements above about British English also apply to Australian English, where "beetroot" is a pickled item found in sandwiches (derived from a crop grown in cooler climates), and silver beet grows in the garden. Thus "beet" would bring non-understanding, followed by "Do you mean silver beet?" Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.