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.
Weed is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Weed at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
" ... used to describe native or nonnative plants that grow and reproduce aggressively."
Well, "native and non-native" describes all possibilities, so how about removing it:
" ... used to describe plants that grow and reproduce aggressively."
which provides no less information. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is reasonable of course, though the wording was a quote from a source. However, in context the intended meaning clearly was something like "whether indigenous or not". That still is redundant in terms of your objection, if taken literally, but currently there is so much concern about invasive species that it might be seen as reasonable and helpful to the reader, to make the point explicit. If you felt like doing a bit of rewording without doing violence to sense or readability, I for one certainly would not complain. JonRichfield (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not enough simply to say "plant X is a weed," with no citations. Instead, we need citations that find common, mainstream support to label something a "weed". Even then, such a label may be disputable in some cases (i.e., clover). Ryoung122 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That bit had bothered me. I had edited the caption independently, but not changed the list. Given how many thousands of weeds there are among invasive species alone, I am uncertain what that list is for at all. We cannot seriously accommodate many species in this article, and if we put in only a few, we should justify their presence with clear reasons for mentioning them as being of special interest. I once saw a list of proposals for the "hundred worst weeds", and maybe I can remember to look for it again, but even then I am only inclined to list those for which there are are articles to link to. I'll have a look if I remember, but don't hold your breath. JonRichfield (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In 1999 ABC-TV (in the USA) had a miniseries called Brave New World (TV series). One of its episodes was about weeds, and in this case, it generalized weeds to all life, not just plants, and detailed weeds ability to quickly adapt, live in multiple environments, and survive mass extinctions. It then ends with the conclusions that humans are a weed, and They Might Be Giants even had a song for it, called King Weed. Alas, I'm failing to find reliable source, largely to the series' horribly unoriginal name. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Second sentence in the article on Weed needs changing:
"The term weed is used in a variety of senses, generally centering around a plant that is not desired within a certain context." It is impossible for anything, whether a physical object or an idea to CENTER AROUND something. CENTER indicates the center and you cannot center around a center. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
While your logic is sound, the phrase "center around" is nonetheless in common usage.12 Still, the lead paragraph was a terrible mess. I've cleaned it up somewhat, in the process removing the phrase that bothered you, but eventually it should be rewritten to properly summarize the body of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)