Talk:Beta vulgaris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV Dispute - Medicine[edit]

The Medicine section has been marked MPOV, but no comments have been placed in the Talk page relating to this, so I thought I'd create this section to see if there is any discussion to be had on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.183.3 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for the neutrality of this section to be disputed. It is clearly NOT an advertisement and though the info is not sited directly the author gave enough information for anyone to verify the statement's legitimacy. Willow42 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be in dispute. There are three studies more recent than the one cited which show specific human benefits:

Queen Mary, University of London (2008, February 6). Daily Glass Of Beet Juice Can Beat High Blood Pressure, Study Shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 18, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205123825.htm
University of Exeter (2010, August 26). Supplement produces a 'striking' endurance boost. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 18, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826104137.htm
University of Exeter (2009, August 7). Beetroot Juice Boosts Stamina, New Study Shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 18, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141520.htm

ThreeRocks (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domain[edit]

Nice pictures, I must say. Very lovely baby beets, for sure! This page is redirected from beetroot, even though it is a seperate variety (not sure of the terminology) like sugarbeet. Shouldn't beetroot be a seperate article? Peter Isotalo 19:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's become more braod than the beetroot only article it was before, but the American usage seems to be beet, while UK is beetroot. GraemeLeggett 15:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are carrots referred to as carrotroot?71.79.29.143 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units[edit]

From the article: "An average sized cup (250 ml) of sliced beets..." Including the metric equivalent was a nice thought, but in most metric-using countries solid ingredients are measured by weight, not volume. Does anyone happen to have a cup of sliced beets to hand, and if so, could they change that to give the equivalent in grams rather than millilitres?

Done --Renice 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour[edit]

I added the bit on colour but was unsure if the English "colour" rather than american "color" spelling was appropriate Andham2000 15:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's originally a European native plant, so it should be at international spelling - MPF 12:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
European native plant has nothing to do with it. If it is not dealing with something connected to a particular variant of the English language, original usage should prevail. Your argument is like saying we should never use maize but always call it corn, using American English for an American native plant. Gene Nygaard 14:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling should be consistent - the change of "colorant" to "colourant" was more in keeping with consistency and minimal changes than changing all instances of "colour" to "color". GraemeLeggett 14:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The color spelling was used here for months before the colour spelling—and for more months after the inconsistent with existing spellings "colour" was added by Andham2000. Gene Nygaard 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the main reason I checked up and went to original spelling was because of the edit summary statement by User:Xyster, to match "international spelling". That simply is contrary to the Wikipedia rules. As you point out, consistency within an article is an admirable goal; if Xyster had made his edit on that basis, it is unlikely I would even have checked what the original spelling was. Gene Nygaard 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of clarity in my edit - it actually was for consistency with the spelling of 'colour' in the rest of the article; I clouded matters with my reference to 'International English' quoted from MPF's comment above. Xyster 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made what I hope was a minor change to the (very useful) color section: I changed the word vaccuoles to a link and removed the word "(holes)", which was an inaccurate characterization of vacuoles included in the source document. Vacuoles in cells are not really holes, they are more like membrane bound sacks within the cell. Blindrhino 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition[edit]

Its not clear if the nutritional info given is for raw, cooked, pickled or whatever. In the interests of accuracy should this be checked? 20.133.0.14 28 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

  • Yes, it should; such nutritional labels (U.S.-style) are not normally found on fresh veggies, so I suspect this is from canned beets. But I'm not in the U.S. so I can't run out and check this myself. Sharkford 14:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


suggestion/taste[edit]

I have never eaten a beet, or even seen a beet. Once I layed down beats. But in any case, I approached the article desiring to understand the experience of beet eating...how does it taste? What does the taste resemble?

There is nothing on the avalibility of the beet during the year, when is it best grown?

In Portland, Oregon, people generally buy the roots of beets that have been minced and canned (in metal cans). It is unusual to find bottled beets unless you do them yourself, and are the "do it yourself" - When you buy them from the grocery store and open them up, they are almost always going to be in the shape of 1/4 inch cubes, all a deep scarlet red color. I have, however, seen some beets that crinkle cut, as if they were processed like pickles are.
Beets out of the can are not crisp. They do not crunch like crisp pickles do. They are a little on the soggy side because they are canned in their own broth. I imagine the reason they are not crisp is because they are heated prior to canning or bottling.
So far as I can tell, beets have a fruity flavor, with almost no citric or ascorbic acid. They taste like they are a little bit on the pungent side because manufacturers soak them with cloves or allspice before canning. I was recently reading a book about prisoners of war in Germany, and one of the soups that prisoners got to eat (i.e., sip) was beet soup - a kind of sweetish soup made of chopped, boiled beets and cabbage. 198.177.27.26 07:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh beets that have been roasted have a very sweet, earthy flavour.Wwm101 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

references[edit]

The people of Shelbyville drink turnip juice, not beetroot juice.

Merge?[edit]

I think the Beta stub should remain separate since it provides links to other species (as yet unpopulated, but still...). It's been 10 days since the notice was placed and there was no discussion, so I'm removing the notice. --Renice 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But, beta article is like a stub, and beet is like a main article.--Ricardo Carneiro Pires 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm vascillating on this -- but, the one statement in the beta article that trips me up is "Almost all have the common name of 'beet'." If 'beet' were a common name for all beta species, there'd be no problem... Or, could merge beet into beta and make it the main article... ?? What are beta species that aren't commonly called beets? Chard (which is covered in the beet article)? Others? --Renice 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beet follows standard wiki naming so it belongs as the main article compare with rose/rosa. GraemeLeggett 11:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're arguing that beta should be merged into this article? (There's no Rosa article, only the rose article.) --Renice 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just that renaming beet is not a sensible idea.GraemeLeggett 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root vegetable[edit]

Although several parts of the beet plant are used for food, I think it would be good to have a specific mention of the root as a root vegetable, with a link to the article on root vegetables. The article on root vegetables does list beets, under True root, Taproot. 140.147.160.78 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Merge with mangelwurzel?[edit]

Beetroot and mangelwurzel are one and the same thing (Beta vulgaris). So why do we need two separate articles?? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangelwurzel is a seperate set of verieties, which are not eaten by humans and are only used as fodder. Wwm101 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Human vomit remark?[edit]

How would one go about tracking down who put a specific edit into an article without having to laboriously compare every single edit with its previous edit? I ask because someone put a remark about human vomit within the article, and I'm quite sure it's vandalism, or someone trying to push an agenda. (could be both though), although I don't know what to put in place of it or simply remove it. Brian Ryans 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply remove and ignore--there are vandals who put obvious prank comments like this in Wikipedia all of the time, usually they are just children making the modern equivalent of prank phones calls, wasting your time discussing it, repeating it in the edit history and the like are not necessary. However, these edits were simply the four done before you removed the information. Usually stuff like this doesn't sit in an article for long, so just looking at what anonymous (IP address, often red-linked instead of blue) did the last edit is sufficient. Thanks for the reverts. KP Botany 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

The data in the taxobox and the categorization are in dispute currently. According to the taxobox, beet belongs to the family Chenopodiaceae, but the article is in the category Amarantaceae. As far as I know, only APG treats Chenopodiaceae as a subfamily of Amarantaceae (and it should not be called Chenopodiaceae then but Chenopodioidae).

To provide we're not giving undue weight to APG, I propose recategorization of the article to the category Chenopodiaceae. --Eleassar my talk 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless there is some well-sourced compelling reason for doing otherwise, consistency within the article and the taxobox, tied to a source, with a single mention within the text of the APG I/II (whichever) classification. KP Botany 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
seems like someone could go through the whole genus and either put them into amarantacea or chenopodiacea, for example spinach and chard note amaranteacea as the family

trueblood 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies[edit]

While attempting to add material to this article from Zohary & Hopf's Domestication of plants in the Old World (third ed.), I found that they list two wild subspecies of B. vulgaris that are not mentioned in this article:

  • B. vulgaris macrocarpa (Guss.) Thell., "native to the warmer, more arid parts in the Mediterranean basin"
  • B. vulgaris adanensis (Pamukç.) Ford-Lloyds & Williams, "which thrives in the Mediterranean parts of Turkey"

Are these two different subspecies from what is listed, or are they synonyms of what is listed? -- llywrch 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B. vulgaris adanensis according to IPNI is B. adanensis. B. vulgaris macrocarpa is not listed on IPNI. KP Botany 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I added a few links that seemed good (full disclosure: I maintain the vegetable home-growing site linked); I also slightly changed the descriptions, seeking a more uniform format (use the page's own title as the link text). Eric Walker 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

the sea beet page claims that sea beets are the true ancestral form, rather than the vulgaris sub-species —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.106.113.106 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Sea Beet is the ancestral form, but once a plant has been sufficiently changed by domestistication, it is often considered a different subspecies or even species. Wwm101 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References[edit]

Should there be a section over the pretend band "The Beets" from the cartoon Doug? Should there be a section dedicated to cultural references in general? For instance, Dwight Schrute (a character on the TV show "The Office" in the U.S.) is a self proclaimed beet farmer.

the raddish[edit]

Shouldn't there also be an article on the raddish? Perhaps I'm spelling it wrong?

Indeed you are. It's "radish". Tevildoii (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"open-pollinated"[edit]

this term should be wikified. I tried to find a target, but came out empty-handed.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. The target is open pollination (which needs work, but at least it exists). I suppose there should be a redirect from open-pollinated and/or open pollinated (although the article itself should be a noun, if I'm remembering the WP:MOS correctly). Kingdon (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta vulgaris[edit]

Maybe the article should be under this heading? That's the advantage of scientific names, universality. It doesn't seem encyclopaedic to look for a town in the Netherlands and run smack into a North American (name for a) vegetable... So Beet would redirect to Beta Vulgaris (this article), Beets to the town with a top-of-page link to this article. Just an idea. Hakluyt bean (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should check Wikiprogect Plants' Naming Conventions. Wwm101 17:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

New article at garden beet[edit]

Just in case anyone is watching this page, I've created a new article at Garden beet to cover that variety of beet. This article is a bit confused with some editors seemingly treating the species Beta vulgaris as a whole while others focus in detail on specific varieties. Ideally this article should be general with links to the articles on relevant varieties, but I don't have time to do a thorough job at the moment. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paralysis Claim and Organic "Cure"[edit]

I deleted a claim that beet juice causes vocal cord paralysis, but organic beet juice cures this. There was no citation provided, and this seems very far-fetched. If someone has supporting evidence, feel free to add it, but this seems highly unlikely. --Orthogonalogy (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all cultivated are subspecies vulgaris, vs chard is maritima[edit]

This page says all cultivated beets are of the subspecies vulgaris, whereas the chard page says that chard is subspecies maritima. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish New Year[edit]

You need to distinguish between what's said in Jewish classic literature and modern practice. The things most closely associated with New Year in European tradition are honey and apples, not beets. 4.249.63.185 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chenopodiaceae[edit]

Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae covers the classification issues. I'm not sure how much should be addressed in this article, or what additional refs we need. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the the APG system for classification. Hardyplants (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest? --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For consistancy sake, Wikipedia has abopted the APG system for taxaboxs because it is based on more current research and seems to be accepted by many current researchers in plant systematics. Other informational resources are not so up to date, the Spinach article lists a note that might be useful. Hardyplants (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a ref, though dated by a few years: [1] Hardyplants (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minimally, I want to make it clear here on the talk page why it's classified this way and that there's some strong consensus for doing so. I think this brief discussion should be enough. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama[edit]

Is the fact that he doesn't like beets really that important to the article?75.142.54.211 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. I removed it. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone without a user name re-added this piece of trivia. I removed it, and it was added again. It doesn't add anything to the article, and I see it as going against the recommendations of WP:TRIV. I'm sure we could find references to every famous person's opinion on beet preference, but until we do that, this probably constitutes WP:UNDUE too. I don't want to get into an edit war as someone obviously is interested in keeping this thing in the article. Any suggestions on what to do? DJLayton4 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 109.125.14.161 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals with the wild species and the species complex, covering each cultivar briefly. Other articles deal with beetroots and chard in particular and in depth. See WP:FLORA for the policy on this. DJLayton4 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

refs 3 and 19 are dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin-UK (talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved; Beet redirected to Beetroot. Miniapolis 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Beet → Beta vulgaris – Redirect the current title, Beet to Beetroot. This article is about a plant species that produces several edible products, including a root vegetable called Beet (US English) or Beetroot (UK English). Beet is ambiguous, referring either to the root vegetable, or the species as a whole. WP:FLORA generally supports using the scientific name as a title and this guideline is endorsed by the WP:AT policy at WP:MOSAT. The species is a whole is generally not discussed outside of a botanical context, where the scientific name would be appropriate. The vast majority of incoming links to this article use beet in a context where it is clear that the root vegetable, not the species, is the intended subject. Beet should redirect to Beetroot, and this article should be moved to the scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support redirection the vegetable is more likely that the plant itself. Though you could call this the beet plant or beet (plant) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment both of these options should become redirects if they do not become the name of the article. beet (vegetable) should similarly become a redirect to the root vegetable. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to species name. There are more common names that apply to this species than have been dealt with yet on the page, such as Swiss chard, Mangold, and Mangel. It would be ideal if there were a page for each of the subspecies that is agriculturally important, and to move towards that, it is a good start to have this page under the species name. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beet doesn't refer unambiguously to the species as a whole, and more frequently to a plant product or the cultivars that produce that product. Ibadibam (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: it's a common garden vegetable, we have carrot, bean, potato, etc. all going to their common garden plant name, with appropriate dabs and such. The US/UK issue is minor, and the point is that we don't have anything CLOSE to universal naming by scientific name, see, e.g. tumbleweed, tulip, etc... Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: But mangelwurzels are not common garden vegetables, they are fodder for animals. This page name shouldn't be covering the entire species. Tumbleweed is an excellent example, there are many species that can become tumbleweeds late in their life history, and each of those species has a separate page under the scientific name, while the tumbleweed page lists them. They are not even related to one another, but examples occur in different plant families. Scientific names should be used when accuracy demands their use. As stated above, if the material currently on this page were on a page called Beta vulgaris then it would be possible to add the missing information about mangelwurzels, chard, etc. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Carrot refers to the domesticated cultivars of Daucus carota subsp. sativus, whereas Daucus carota covers the species as a whole. Bean is about a specific food product coming from a variety of species. Potato refers unambiguously to Solanum tuberosum. "Beet", on the other hand, might refer to Beta vulgaris or to a specific group of cultivars of that species. The question is, does "beet" refer more commonly to the whole species, or to the swollen root that is consumed as a food? Most dictionaries still list the species as the first definition for "beet", and the food product as the second. But I'd argue that many (in North America, anyway), use "beet" more commonly to refer to the root, or at least to those cultivars that are grown for the root. (I've never heard anyone refer to chard at the dinner table saying "pass the beet!") So while naming the species article "beet" may be accurate from a lexicographical perspective, it's a bit ambiguous. Hence the proposed move. Ibadibam (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually yes, Silver Beet is a "common name" that is actually quite common for what is elsewhere called Swiss Chard. That should, I think, be handled with a hatnote, beet the root vegetable, not to be confused with Silver Beet. Strangely, we have Chard as a separate page with a subspecies name, though it is rare for taxonomists to separate it as a subspecies. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not all that common, but I see what you're saying. So the proposed hatnote would go at the top of Beetroot? And then we'd also have hatnotes for seakale beet, crab beet, sugar beet, field beet, fodder beet, etc? At that rate, we may as well point the hatnote to Beet (disambiguation) and settle it all there. Ibadibam (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, clearly not at the top of Beetroot. I think it will be insisted that Beet (disambiguation) has to be called Beet, so this page should be a disambig. (Interesting, Silver Beet must be a regional name, it was the only term used where I grew up. I've no idea what they call Ruby Chard there now, but will ask.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My informant in an area where Silver Beet is a common name says that the coloured chard are called Rainbow Chard and Silver Beet has not been displaced. This further comment that I found amusing was offered "Perhaps the word Chard will have to be adopted into English." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chard should probably have the taxobox replaced with a cultivar infobox. The scientific name for chard (per ICNCP) is, as far as I can tell, "Beta Cicla Group". Beetroot could use a cultivar box as well, and all the "convar." stuff on the beet page could be updated (convar. seems to be a deprecated rank). There are many other articles on cultivated plants using taxoboxes/ICN style nomenclature where cultivar boxes and ICNCP nomenclature would be more appropriate.Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if WP:PLANTS had a section on how to deal with cultivated plants, particularly cultivar groups. Do you feel up to the challenge of writing a draft for discussion at that project? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to species name, the topic of the current page is the species in its many expressions. Hardyplants (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To most people including gardeners, beet is beet, or some expression including "beet", and beta is a Greek letter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you hear the word "beet", what is the first thing that comes to mind? Do you think of a large, edible, red or yellow root? The plant that produces it? Or do you think of a group of plants that includes that vegetable, plus chard, mangelwurzel, and a few other things? Ibadibam (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Multiple "History" sections[edit]

There are two "History" sections in the article (also, the root article has no history, but a trivia section). Is this left over from the recent move? Could someone take a look? Jd2718 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the sections, without doing any external research. I note that I kept more of the second section, which was better referenced. However, it nows leans too heavily on a single source. Jd2718 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beta vulgaris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beta vulgaris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been suggested the pigment molecule betanin in the root of red beets may protect against oxidative stress and has been used for this purpose in Europe for centuries."[edit]

Oh, come. Like anyone knew what oxidative stress was a century ago, let alone centuries. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beta vulgaris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Zefr (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beta_vulgaris&oldid=1212527716"