Talk:Watermelon

• /Archive 1 (February to November 2005)

Watermelon as Vegetable or Fruit?

I am beginning this new section because someone from an anonymous IP added an edit to the article saying that the watermelon is a vegetable. I had previously considered that point the other day while reading a poorly researched article for a radio talk show and, after reading dictionary entries, academic websites, and the List of Fruits wikipedia page, I have temporarily reverted the edit till people with more scientific info review it. I believe that whoever began this page had a reason for listing it as a fruit. Cucurbits are listed some places as a bit of both fruit and vegetable. There are a couple of pages online that call watermelon a vegetable but they are very few. I hope that people who have done research can decide if there is something wrong with the article's original discussion of it being a fruit or not because if it isn't, then the List of Fruits needs adjusting too. Bebop 04:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Watermelon fits the basic definition of a fruit, it is the ripened ovary, together with its seeds, of a flowering plant. Some of the Cucurbits are simplistically thought of as vegetables even though they are also fruits, like pumpkin and squash, beacuse when they are used for food they are used more like a vegetable, ie cooked, than a fruit which would typically be eaten raw. Watermelon is not a vegetable. --nixie 04:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Great to get info from a biology specialist/admin. If you or anyone else has a strong print or web source to cite in the References section re: your comment, it would be really great. There is a print source from 1974 originally put in the article at the time most of the fruit detail was added by User:Marshman on September 17, 2004, that likely addresses this already, and it is still in the References section; maybe that's enough. I could ask Marshman's talk page.

In general, if people ever want to add any other web reference to document any aspect of the article not yet sourced in the References (like info in the Watermelon as Food and Drink section) but don't know the Wikipedia stylebook citation style, I can format the citation details for them into the References section; I'd just need the basic URL link added to the article with a description of the text documented in the Edit Summary box (or the link temporarily could be put right next to the fact being documented and I can move the citation to References later when I format the details). For print sources, we'd need as much detail as one has (probably first added to the article References with a description of which text is being documented (or the citation could be placed parenthetically next to the info referenced to be moved by me to References later). I'd assume that anyone adding a print source would have all the citation info on hand while typing it; I could reformat it or people could follow the style already used in the section (which is from the wiki styleguide) without needing any help. Anyone can always feel free to drop me a note to help with citation style. Bebop 13:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Nixie is exactly right and following the link to fruit will explain this fact to anyone. It is not necessary to cite a source for basic definitions in botany (or any other science). The link does that by going to a page that provides definitions and sources of information. The part of the watermelon plant that is usually eaten is the fruit of that plant. It is not a "vegetable" in the culinary sense, either, so I suspect the anon IP was vandalising - Marshman 17:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the person was vandalizing. There are several websites that mistakenly call it a vegetable, including one for an agriculture talk show, claiming to correct people who call it a fruit. And as for citing a source for info, I am not talking about dotting the article with lots of distracting footnotes. I am referring to adding sources to the general references listed at the end of the article to show where info came from. According to the style guide, we are supposed to show our sources for all information put in the encyclopedia so that people doing the fact check project later can see where it came from & verify it. Anyone could put an incorrect or false sentence in as a "fact" if allowed to list no source in the references section for their info. There is a book cited in the References for this watermelon article that may have a lot of general botany info about watermelons in it, so that's good, although many items have been added to the article since that source was listed that clearly are from other sources not listed yet. Definitions do need source referencing, and the styleguide speaks of rewriting definitions from other sources so that a definition is not copied word for word from another copyrighted source without quoting it. Whenever possible, sources should be listed in the References section for info added to any article because otherwise people could just make "facts" and definitions up (or go from memory and be mistaken) and put anything they want into any article, hoping people believe it. The first article I ever consulted Wikipedia for was on a health item, and I'm still not sure I should have relied on the information in the article because there were no sources cited for the info; it may have just been someone's opinion. Not listing sources is lazy; it's a problem with many articles in Wikipedia written by folks who never looked at the style guide. Anyway, I just want to encourage people to do it. Some have implied that the fact check project editors in future years could end up removing info that can't be verified in articles they check, but I don't know if that's true. Bebop 12:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if it's got seeds, it's technically a fruit. deeceevoice 23:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I recently opened a box of a generic instant oatmeal. Inside there is trivia written on each of the packets. One stated that watermelon is in fact a vegetable. No source was referenced. Someone must clear the air! Unsuspecting children are eating oatmeal and possibly being mislead. The oatmeal was tasty though, so it has that going for it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Tleevz1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I too saw saw a watermelon referred to as a vegetable, on our local news channel. I belive it my be fence produce, that in something that could go either way, just as a tomato is. ben414

the day i get served stewed watermelon as a side dish with my dinner is the day i will consider that it may be a vegetable. Gzuckier 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to approach adding a comment, but I am also aware of this awry debate of the watermelon. I have noticed watermelons being called both vegetables and fruits commonly, and I believe we are simply being biased for the fruit favor simply because it is the current belief of the Wikipedia article. Keep an open mind and consider all possibilities, such as that some vegetables are classified as flowering plants, including the pumpkin, which is cousin to the watermelon. --Furby

I just went to Watermelon.org (National watermelon promotional board), and according to them, it is BOTH a fruit and a vegetable. JAK2112 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

False Berry (branch from fruit or vegetable)

Sez right up top, it's a false berry. Gzuckier 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It says that the plant "bears an accessory fruit of a type that botanists call a false berry", but I can't tell what part of the plant it's referring to, and whether or not the part that we normally think of as the fruit (the melon) is the false berry, or if there's something else. If anyone can clarify, maybe include a picture of the false berry part, that would be great. Everything I can find on the subject just repeats that exact same sentence. FireWorks 19:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally an African fruit!

A fruit that comes from Africa, not to brag but most fruits I hear about come from either the middle East, Asia or Americas. Pretty cool!

MAJOR EDIT

The info about seperating/political usage of watermelon is interesting. However, it does not look very clear, and needs split into regions. The article structure itself is good, but it needs neutrality. The official (geographic/scientific) name of the U.S.A. sounds "northern america". I do not approve to deletion of the added paragraph! Please shorten political sentence to as little as possible.

Blacks eating watermelon

This article states that blacks eating watermelons is considered a derogatory caricature. I have seen this mentioned elsewhere, but do not understand it. Could someone explain what is so derogatory about eating watermelon? Even if black people did have a particular liking for it, why would it be any more offensive than showing Italians eating pasta, Asians eating rice or Jews eating bagels?

It more fits under "discrimination" itself, and has not much to do with watermelons. However it has happened as it looks. Such illustrations are acceptable into a page like watermelon/discrimination. (for education purpose, it needs explanatory terms "degoratory carricature"). Currently i am discussing the slash pages issue (how/if it can be done) at the "village pump" (proposals). Wikipedia is not doing censorship, but IMO it is not wrong to put annoying information into a sub-page. alex 08:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problems with this information appearing on this page. I'd say it does belong here. I'm asking about the missing information - what is supposed to be derogatory about suggesting that some particular subculture is inordinately fond of watermelon, whether or not that assertion is true? I've never heard any suggestion that a depiction of Asians eating rice is derogatory, for instance. By contrast suggesting that Koreans eat dogs clearly is derogatory, even if were true, because many western people keep canine vermin as loved pets. So what's "wrong" with eating watermelon?

Well we don't know until we have seen the images/illustrations in doubt. But i guess some of us prefer not to see it each time they browse for "standard" items like watermelons. In south-east asia they definetively eat rats and dogs, and in russia they do not always refrain from horse meat. Guess it is not the thing to big-picture it on the horse page, but it is possible to include it somewhere (where it belongs...) degoratory is it to draw a racial image in MAD MAG style, means to picture shabby clothing, silly grinning, vermin, you get get the idea. It has nothing to do with watermelons, except the fact the illustration contains image of watermelon. It is very exchangeable. It would mutilate the article, if it contains a gallery of ten such illustrations, and not much else. If it is only about north american past treatment of blacks, it becomes an illustration of that thing, using watermelons for political purposes. Wikipedia should display scientific info at a neutral point of view. IMO is is possible to include degoratory illustrations into a sub-page Degoratory_Watermelon_imagery_usage (they insist to capitalize watermelon). This page name should be fine. It is possible to put the info about socialism&watermelons there as well. alex 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

edit plan

Additionally, the word "watermelon" has been used since the late 20th century
as a term describing left-wing Green party members, referring to them as 
"green on the outside, red on the inside" (red being the color commonly associated with socialism.)

Watermelons are "green on the outside, red on the inside". 
This is subject of various analogies, about green party members
but anything which is not what it looks on the surface.
The television anthem of russia (2003) includes a watermelon scene,
for yet not known reasons, but probably self-parody of their socialist past.
During so-called slavery (North America, 19th century) Black people
have been subject of degorative cartoon (being extraordinary fond of eating watermelons).  
Nowadays (2006) various races picture watermelons: North Americans
(festivals in Texas), Japanese people (matsuri) and Russia (proofable).

offensive imagery

Given the discussion in the article about the negative association of African Americans and watermelons, why is the image for this page a picture of a black man passed out in the street next to pieces of watermelon? Also, does the phrase "typical usage" below this picture actually mean that this is how watermelons are typically used?

I'm sorry that I don't have the time to learn how wikipedia works so that I can replace this image, but it is quite offensive and I think it should be replaced.

Ugh, some idiot thought it'd be clever to replace the watermelon images. Reverted. Elefuntboy 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Some idiot did it again. :) Don't blame me, blame somethingawful.com GSMalette 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind stopping? It's not funny, it's informative, and it's actually quite offensive. And for the record I will blame you. Gladly. Elefuntboy 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, blame me if it makes you feel better. But for the record I think it was funny.GSMalette 01:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Square Watermelon

Wikipedia really needs to find a pic of a square watermelon for this page. --71.36.251.182 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll believe it when I see it. --Jnelson09 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The following reference's link is dead (404)

Motes, J.E.; Damicone, John; Roberts, Warren; Duthie, Jim; Edelson, Jonathan. "Watermelon Production." Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved Jul. 17, 2005.

Test for ripeness

How to check for ripeness? Colour of the skin? Tap the outside and listen to the sound it makes? Why? Pgr94 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Seedless Watermelon

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember hearing somewhere that a Korean scientist invented the seedless watermelon. Given how Korea was annexed by Japan in the early-mid 20th century and much of Korean achievements were credited to Japan (ex: 1936 Summer Olympics, both gold and bronze medalists in the marathon were Koreans running under Japanese names and the Japanese flag), this might be grounds for potential disagreement. Can anyone investigate this? Thanks.