From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"Alexander W. Livingston was the first person who succeeded in upgrading the wild tomato," What is it a damned cell phone? Botanists to not "upgrade" plants. Plants are a biological organism. Just like you can't "upgrade" your son or daughter. Perhaps the writer meant "domesticated"? If Livingston improved the "wild tomato" as the writer claims, then it was domesticated, not "upgraded" like an Ipad.

The Tomato. Fruit Or Vegetable ?[edit]

Hello there is many concepts and arguments that the tomato is a fruit or if it is a vegetable. Some say That the tomato is a fruit because it has seeds. Other's say that the tomato is a vegteable because it isn't sweet and the majority of fruits are sweet.

USDA link[edit]

@Zefr: I don't understand why you reverted my edit. The USDA link I gave goes directly to the data table, whereas the one you put just gives a "Foods List" and then you need to figure out what to click on to get to the data. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Experience shows that the USDA list of foods analyzed is continually increasing, a process that changes the URL for individual foods, whereas the URL for the search term remains the same. There are some editors systematically going from food to food to change the URL this way. --Zefr (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Energy value[edit]

I have removed the value for the energy content from the table because it is inconsistent with the other values in the table. The USDA database gives 74 kJ, but this is not consistent with their own formula, which says the number of kilocalories is 4*(protein+non-fibre carbs)+9*fat. Multiplying this by 4.184 gives 67 kJ. Even if one does not exclude the fibre, one still gets a different number from the 74 kJ they report. I don't know how to explain why there is this discrepancy. I have simply removed the number because when I tried to put the value which is consistent with the USDA values for protein, carbohydrate, and fat, it was removed as "original research". Last year I was part of a long debate about whether we should put statements in Wikipedia which are obviously false, just because they come from what is usually considered a reliable source. In the end the others agreed to delete the false statement. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you believe there is a more reliable source for the energy value, please provide the source and the value from it. Your WPOR remains without value here in WP. There really is a simple way to address your concern - just provide a more reliable source with the value you understand is correct. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: After rereading the USDA explanation (here, page 14) I see that they actually only say that they use the "4, 4, 9" method for "multi-ingredient processed foods", and that they use so-called "Atwater calorie factors" for other foods, referencing a USDA document from 1973. The database actually gives the factors used for each food, and for tomato it gives 3.57, 2.44, and 8.37 kcal/g for carbohydrate, protein, and fat. I do not find these numbers though in the 1973 document, so I don't know how they came up with them. The document mentions tomatoes briefly (p. 38), but only to say that they use the factors for fruit for tomatoes and rhubarb. The factors for fruit are given in Table 20 (p. 49) as 3.60, 3.36, and 8.37, so only the "fat" number corresponds to what the database uses. Also, the database counts the 1.2 g of "fibre" as carbohydrate and thus gives it 3.57 kcal/g, which is clearly wrong. This is the main reason why I think the figure of 74 kJ is too high.
In any case, I do not agree that one needs to provide a reliable source in order to delete something from Wikipedia! Deleting is not original research, even if it involves doing some thinking and calculating. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
See prior response. Jytdog (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog and Zefr: By the way, I just came across another example of where the USDA database exaggerates the amount of energy. I ate a yellow pepper the other day, and it seemed sweet, so I looked up Bell pepper and clicked on the link to the USDA site. It says 20 kcal per 100 grams, and this is calculated using the same three factors as those I mentioned above (3.57, 2.44, & 8.37). Most of these calories come from the carbohydrate, but in fact there is only 2.4 g of sugar, and no starch. The total carbohydrate ("by difference") is given as 4.64 g. That means they're giving peppers 3.57×(4.64−2.40)=7.9968 kcal for the non-sugar, non-starch "carbohydrate"! That's 8 out of the 20 kcals. Seems totally unjustified to me. I'm not even sure that there is that much carbohydrate (4.64 g), even if you count the fibre, because it says there's only 1.7 g fibre. So the sugar and fibre together makes only 4.1 g. Anyway, fibre does not give you 3.57 kcal per gram. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Eric Kvaalen: while I admire your attention to the small details of calculating food energy, I feel it is time to accept the general (even if approximate) value of USDA data presentations as the best available information for the encyclopedia per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As there would need to be a secondary source to refute the USDA database, the burden is on you to find such a source to support your assertions. I don't think you'll find it, so please refrain from trying to make such changes in the nutrition tables for different foods. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, your own research is not relevant in WP. Everything here depends on reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Zefr: I have other things to do than argue with you two. But let me just say that it is common knowledge, with plenty of sources, that "fibre" does not provide 3 kcal/g or more, and repeat that the USDA database is not a reliable source when it makes mistakes like this. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate caption in section 3.7[edit]

The image <>, in section 3.7 Modern Commercial Varieties, has an inaccurate caption. The pictured tomatoes exhibiting yellow shoulders have, contrary to the caption, ripened uniformly; the yellow shoulders are a physiological disorder, not under ripe fruits. See <> for further explanation of yellow shoulder on tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)