Talk:Potato/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Peru has over 4000 types of Potatoes! Potatoes comes from Peru!!! Mr. Potato Head, on the other hand, did not come from Peru. Paddington, the Bear, DID come from Peru. Why would we need to mention Chili in this? Chili can give a lot of people gas and that can definitely mean that you will have a fart attack from time to time. It seems to me that people are not inform! please travel! read books! and don't stick to whatever school or your parents has teach you. It seems to me that Chilean people think that they are the owners of everything! potatoes, suspiro de Limena or suspiro a la Limena, pisco (even though the very famous Chilean writer Isabel Allende in her book "Mi Pais Inventado" page 22 admitted that pisco was stolen from Peru!...I wonder what would be next! perhaps Inca Kola?, lucuma?, Cherimoya? purple corn?. I would love to see Chilean people being proud of their own products! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoSalaz (talkcontribs) 20:52, 14 June 2008

There is not conclusive proof that potatos come from Chili, in fact it is highly unlikely that Chili is the only place they did grow natively. It is far more likely, and almost certainly a fact, that the potato is native to all of South and North America since it is also unlikely that potatos are aware of political boundries or that Chili was even a ideal around 3000 BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
unlikely that potatos are aware of political boundries " that makes me lulz with great intensity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeonos (talkcontribs) 08:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The plural of potato is "potatoes". There's no such place as "Chili". —QuicksilverT @ 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It is highly likely that the potato came from Chile. The problem is potatoes are a very old cultivar. Regardless, potatoes did not spontaneously appear all across South America. They started somewhere. BingoDingo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

Slight error in the article

I think the portion of the potato that we eat is actually stem, and not root. Other wikipedia articles seem to confirm this, so perhaps we should make a revision. CL —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't eat either part. Potatoes are tuber plants, and humans consume the tuber of the plant. Potatoes are Stem tubers, but that does not mean we are eating the stem. Stem tuber implies that it originates off the stem, not that it is the stem. So, if anything, both arguments are wrong, while in a way, they are both right, as new potato plants grow from the edible part of the plant. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cooking away toxins/solanine...

This sentence is a bit vague: "Cooking at high temperatures (over 170 °C or 340 °F) partly destroys these." I found a reference here that states: "Solanine is not destroyed in the cooking process." and thought maybe some consolidation of the two statements might be in order. Also, the wiki page on solanine mentions that boiling will not reduce levels of solanine. --Crimson30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeping your (still living) potatoes out of sunlight is what's important. Solanine is created as part of a photosynthesis process. Of course, when they are underground this isn't a problem. But exposed to sun the skin will take on a green hue. This is when solanine is produced. BingoDingo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC).


I can't believe this potatoe article doesn't have more attention brought to it only a few things on the discussion page potatoes are important man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

that is because aside from the normal British dogma, the article is pretty good as written, so no need to discuss. I mean do you have something to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember coming to this page for a project once and it said, "a potato is a plant that grows in the ground ha ha." That was 2 years ago, and I came back later and the normal article was back. Does anyone else remember that? One day, normal page - next day, vandalism. (I didn't do it, I'm just curious.) It makes me admire the editing system here. Starfalcon (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Name Potato Name History

As a native American I find the part about the name being Spanish a little offensive. It is common knowledge among Native Americans that the word, just like Tomato, is Native American and in fact they sound similiar for a reason. Both come from one of the oldest Native American languges from South America and they mean Tomato - Summer "fruit", and Potato - Winter "fruit". Both words have changed in spelling a little but are basically the same. This is also why "Americans" pronounce the word one way and the British another. And just for the record the article has that wrong also - the Spanish word does not sound like the Native American one, the way the "Americans" pronouce the word does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover the etymology is not true. It's not of South American but Mexican origin, i.e. from the Nahua-langue, thus Aztec/Toltec. It's name there was "potatl" or "patatl", depending on the dialect. The Nahua-speaking tribes are family of the Ute-Indians (=Utah) in North America, thus definitely no South Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That's also, not true. There are dozens of languages in Central America, the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America that have similar words for potato. Trying to figure out which country the word originated from exactly is a lost cause.
Not sure about the lost cause part, but when a food item is grown for over 8,000 years it gets darned hard to figure out who called it what first. BingoDingo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC).
I would like to add that the term papa is used for potato in almost all spanish speaking countries besides spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swbulldoglks (talkcontribs) 03:26, 23 February 2009
As a scholar on the Andes who has lived in the Andean countryside for years, I would like to add the following (I have moved it):
On the Origins of the word "patata", which is the Spanish noun: The Spanish Academy and other sources do not speak Quechua, and thus often approximate explanations on American words. It is more likely, as oral histoy in Andes has it, that it comes from the acusative case in Quchua, which is expressed in the suffix 'ta'. So 'papa' is the nominative and 'papata' is the direct object, shich would be used when offering of urging to eat. "mikuy papata", people say when offering potatoes.
It is likely that the Spaniards have misheard this, just like the British hear 'Bombay' when they were told 'Mumbai' and 'Burma' when told Myanmar'. In short, it is likely to be taken from a slight mispronounciation of the noun as direct object, the most liely situation in which they would have encountered it, as food is always offered to strangers in the Andes.
And on the righteous anger about the Spanish word being used, it serves no purpose. Historically the Spaniards took the plant and the word to the rest of the world, with the lack of precise kbnowledge and colonial redifinition it entails, just like the examples of Mumbai etc. Let us look at the real history in the Americas and thus positvely rectify errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Potato output in 2005

This map/graph cannot possible be correct. Nothing is shown in Idaho or Maine (USA); yet, the article for the Russett Burbank states that Idaho is the greatest producer in the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdStauff (talkcontribs) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Potato Enzyme and What is Potato?

Potato enzymes are forms of protein that changes a substance, while the enzyme itself does not change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


I note that "New" is listed among the cultivated varieties of potato. Is this correct? I'd always been given to think that "new potato" was a term for potatoes harvested not quite mature. Cactus Wren (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say, new potatoes are not a specific variety. I have removed from list. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests that new potatoes are ones which have not been kept after picking to thicken the skin, but this isn't the way we use the term in the UK. New potatoes have immature skins; old potatoes have been matured, and come complete with a thick skin steaight from the plant. I'm not aware if keeping them thickens the skin further, but certainly the skin can be thick enough to require peeling and to make a respectable baked potato. In any case, as the first reference to 'new' potato is actually in the preparation section, I wonder if this article needs a section on what they are before it uses the term in anger. -- (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rooster, listed as a variety here, has it's own article Rooster potato (which is an orphaned article). Could a link be added? Flamebrows (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found Wilja and Harmony potato varieties in my local UK shop, but they are not listed under the varieties section of the article. The article is locked, so i am unable to edit :( (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Waxy Potatoes

There is nothing in the article about "waxy" potatoes and how they are distinguished from other potatoes. It seems that potatoes can be waxy or mealy: This recipe for Spanish tortilla calls for waxy potatoes: I didn't know what that was, and Wikipedia failed me...(tears shedding, sobs). Bdushaw (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh not weep... for here is an article from Cooks Illustrated [1] about waxy/nonwaxy potatoes, categorizing some common varieties; it goes to the amylose/amylopectin ratio. What say about putting it in the article, will some argue that CI is not a reliable source? Novickas (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Name etymology

I don't know if it can be considered notable, but in several southwestern German dialects, the potato is called "Grombira" or "Grumbiere", which translates to "ground pear" (compare with Austrian German "Erdapfel", which means "earth apple"). Just an oddity, maybe notable, maybe not...? -- megA (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also an ERROR in this section, because all international names are written and translated in singular. But, Polish names "ziemniaki" or "kartofle" ale plural. This needs to be corrected to "ziemniak" and "kartofel" respectively (or: "potatoes are called just ziemniaki or in some regions "kartofle"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Methinks that the Polish "kartofle" is a loan-word from the most common German word for potato, namely Kartoffel. In Latvia, a neighbor of Poland, they are known as "kartupelis". The Latvians would have substituted the "p" sound in place of "f", as "f" is generally not used in endemic Latvian speech. After the arrival of Christian missionaries in 1180, Latvia was under the control of German nobility, even around the time potatoes were introduced to Europe. As the article states, the German word is, in turn, derived from the archaic Italian term. —QuicksilverT @ 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

On the Origins of the word "patata", which is the Spanish noun: The Spanish Academy and other sources do not speak Quechua, and thus often approximate explanations on American words. It is more likely, as oral histoy in Andes has it, that it comes from the acusative case in Quchua, which is expressed in the suffix 'ta'. So 'papa' is the nominative and 'papata' is the direct object, shich would be used when offering of urging to eat. "mikuy papata", people say when offering potatoes. It is likely that the Spaniards have misheard this, just like the British hear 'Bombay' when they were told 'Mumbai' and 'Burma' when told Myanmar'. In short, it is likely to be taken from a slight mispronounciation of the noun as direct object, the most liely situation in which they would have encountered it, as food is always offered to strangers in the Andes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevence of having the name of potato translated into different languages is. What exactly is the value of that? Besides, it doesn't relate to the origin of the word in English. Any thoughts? Hires an editor (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


i took out the part about poutine being popular in all of Canada, because it is an editorial statement which i believe to be untrue. Being a western Canadian who has travelled throughout all of Canada and lived in various regions, i can assure you that Quebec is the only region of Canada (or the world?) where this dish could be considered popular, although you may be able to find it (if you are on a mission) here and there in other regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Poutine is not necessarily made from gravy. Poutine SHOULD be made with poutine sauce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Regarding the image under the Nutrition heading, it seems to me it was misplaced and would be more appropriate in the toxicity section. Even the caption mentions nothing about nutrition, though it does imply that the potatoes in the image are toxic. ... I would move it but I can't edit this article. Parryield (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Potatoes are sometimes used as glue sticks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:32, 17 December 2008

How so, can you verify? I understand that starches can be used for glue but could a lone potato? '''Aryeonos''' (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Types and uses

Article could do with a listing of best or recommended types for the various uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:32, 17 December 2008


The article states as follows:

"Based on historical records, local agriculturalists, and DNA analyses, the most widely cultivated variety worldwide, Solanum tuberosum tuberosum, is believed to be indigenous to Chiloé Archipelago where it was cultivated as long as 10,000 years ago"

However the reference provided states the following:

"Domestication probably first took place in today's highland Peru and Bolivia as much as 10,000 years ago". It does not mention Chile at all. The other reference provided is not relevant to the statement provided in the article.

We need to correct this, because the claim that potatoes were cultivated in chile 10,000 years ago is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceberg7811 (talkcontribs) 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC) (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The potato originates in the Andean regions, the countries mentioned are artifices in geographical terms. So the plant has many varieties and grows throughout th eAndean region, which includes all these countries. It is futile to discuss this in terms of the contempåorary nation states in the region. It is clear that potatoes were grown in large parts of the Andean region, including Bolivia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, long before the Inca Emprire by several different ethnic groups and cultures in the central Andes.

Calories per kilo?

Hey, I have a question. Someone told me that a whole (raw) kilogram of potatoes has only 700 calories (assuming it's not cooked with oil or anything else that would add calories). To me it seems hard to believe that it would be that few - not more than say seven slices of bread. I think I feel a lot more full after eating half a kilo of boiled potatoes than three and a half slices of bread! Does anyone have more info on this? Maybe could be added to the article? Thanks! (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody have any info on this? In the article it says that potatoes yield around 9.2 million calories per acre. But this is based on a yield of how many kilos of potatoes?... (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The fullness feeling is greater with potatoes than bread because potato starch takes longer to break down than bread in the stomach. It's not based in calorie sizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Peru Vs. Chile - Origins

For those who are not aware, Peru and Chile have longstanding border disputes. As a result there is a great deal of animosity between the two countries. One symptom of this are disputes over the origins of various items. The spirit pisco is a classic example of this, and another is the potato.

As long as the 'origins' section is open to public edits, it will never contain objective information. It's unfortunate, but perhaps this section should be locked, and edited by an objective and trusted author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinter (talkcontribs) 07:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute about the origin of potaoes is only carried out at an ignorant nationalistic level, most genetists and historians agree on that the potatoes most probably originated in highland Peru but the spread to other parts of S. America, including Chiloe. Then the first potaoes in Eurpoe came from Peru, but the today most cultivated species is from south-central Chile.Dentren | Talk 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's true that the Peru-Chile conflict over the potato is silly. Next they'll probably be arguing over which country's flag has more red. However, even if today the most cultivated species are from "south-central Chile," all species of potatos (including the ones in Chile) come from the potato that originated in the Peruvian Andes. Therefore, even if it sounds nationalistic to say, the potato originated in modern-day Peru. Now, to say that Peru has the ownership to the potato is silly. Nonetheless, it's important to make note where the potato originated, and in what modern-day country that location is at.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Growing regions

A very informative article, but, um, I'm just a tad surprised not to see Idaho, the leading potato growing region of the U.S., mentioned — along with other prime growing areas such as eastern Oregon and Washington and the Red River Valley of Minnesota, North Dakota and Manitoba.

Sca (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Do all the names given after the French name mean roughly "apple of the earth"? This should be clarified if it is the case, since it is interesting, but unclear. Also the Hebrew תפוח אדמה is abbreviated תפו"א not the way it is given here. Finally, Hebrew is not, in any way, a "European language." I will try to clarify these. Mattcarl (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Some parts of the article are well written and well sourced, but some sections namely nutrition, cultivation and culinary uses are significantly lacking in citations. This is a problem regardless of how well written it is.

--Stinkypie (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New Section - Potato Day

Could a new section or an addition to the Europe section, be added to mention the peculiarly British event known as the Potato Day, These were started some 15 years ago by the Henry Doubleday Research Association's Director Jackie Gear MBE. There are now around a dozen large ones in the UK and they are typified by offering a very large (compared with other countries in the world and with other sources in the UK) selection of varieties as seed tubers to amateur growers - the one I run offers around 140. They also offer the opportunity for the buyers to purchase individual seed tubers so they can try out several new ones without having to buy sackfuls!

I am happy to pen the item - details of my event (with links to many others) are at

Harryosnas (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cooking Requirement

It is incorrect to say that it is a requirement to cook potatos. I ate them raw as a child all the time - all I did was add salt to them, and I never got sick from them. I would think for it to be a requirement something bad (ie major illness) would happen if you ate them uncooked —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition information Incorrect

This article suffers from a major flaw. Everyone knows that the question of whether to peel a potato or not, and how many of the nutrients of a potato are found in the skin, is one of the greatest importance to people who care about nutrition. And yet the only comment is a very inaccurate and unsupported statement that "The notion that "all of the potato's nutrients" are found in the skin is an urban legend. While the skin does contain approximately half of the total dietary fiber, more than 50% of the nutrients are found within the potato itself." This is unsupported, which astonishes me in a Wikipedia where generally you cannot say "the sky is blue" without somebody coming along and saying "citation needed".

This must be checked,and the whole question needs to be addressed more seriously and thoroughly and accurately. For what it's worth, here are the statistics listed by a potato with the skin contains 48% of the RDA of Vitamin C; without the skin, only 13%. With the skin, 46% of Vitamin B6; without, only 9%. Vitamin B9: with skin, 21%; without, 1%. The all-important Potassium: with skin, 46%; without, 7%. Magnesium: 21% vs. 4%. This suggests something very much closer to the "urban legend" that most of the nutrients are, indeed, in the skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think any mention of increased nutrient levels in the skin should be balanced with information about increased toxins in the skin and the thin layer under the skin. --Weetoddid (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is such information, by all means it should be included. Why not? I myself would like to hear about it. (Are you talking about toxicity of the sprouts or of pesticides?) There should be ample--and verified--information on this subject. But the sentence as it stands is outrageous. It simply declares ex cathedra, and without a shred of evidence, that a fact about potatoes is an urban legend. (I don't think "urban legend" is even the right word here; don't you think "rural legend" would be more appropriate in this case? In fact "old wive's tale" is what people usually call such beliefs when they are not true.) In this case, either this unsupported anonymous statement is untrue, or the information on is untrue. Until I have some reference to go by I continue to trust the latter.
It is more than a week since I first entered the above and no change has been made. Is it reasonable that possibly misleading or outright false information on an important topic (important to people who care about nutrition anyway) stands on Wikipedia for an extended time and that the page has been locked to prevent any kind of improvement of it? Can something please be done about this soon?Pplbm (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have unprotected the article - have at it and remember to evaluate and use good sources :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Now I am embarrassed to admit that I had been laboring under a misconception. I had been comparing information about a "large potato--259g" with the skin, with information about 100g without the skin; hence the large discrepancy. It turns out that, comparing potatoes of the same size, the claim that the nutrients are fairly evenly distributed is substantially correct. My apologies to the author of the original statement which I have wrongly been condemning as outrageous falsehood! At least this led me to find more precise information, and I hope I have improved the page in three ways: by removing the "urban legend" phrase, by adding specific quantities, and by providing a link.
However, I still feel that someone with access to more detailed information could make a more valuable contribution here. Where is getting their information from? It puzzles me that a somewhat smaller potato without the skin should actually have more of some things (vitamin C, copper) than one with the skin. I'm sure there can be an explanation but I don't know what it is. So again, any contributions from people who have studied this question would be appreciated! Pplbm (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Noticed a possible missing value in the percentages of RDAs given: 10 percentages are given for example of potato without skin, then respectively 9 percentages are given for similar potato with skin. Aaronmicalowe (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)