Talk:Herb

New External Link
Found a herb site/column with interesting additional information - not advertorial! Its also got some interesting points in the articles. http://www.bensorensen.com/DruidsGarden/articles.html History and Uses of Herbs Nesneros1982 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A vs. an
Reading "a herb" makes my head hurt. Is this a British/American English thing that I shouldn't fix per the manual of style? moink 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is but that doesn't mean no you shouldn't. If you want to be pedantic you can go way back and find the original way it was written and then we stick with that, or just change it to the correct ahem way you like.  I say "a herb" myself, but that is neither here not there. -  brenneman  {L} 08:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This little discussion finally clears up a mystery; I'm normally pretty good at Americanisms, but never knew definitively if the failure to pronounce the 'h' in herb was because it is simply silent for some historical reason in America, or whether it was a foreign loan-word with a different pronounciation. I think this probably puzzles more English people than one might suspect! Blitterbug (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Intersting points. I came here looking for the difference between herb and spice and see another dillema.  Here in the states very few people pronounce the H. I did some reading and found that the word herb has its roots in the latin herba and the French erbe or herbe, where the h is silent.  Like hour, honor, and other words with French origins, we typically don't pronounce the H. In other articles there is clear documentation that even in Britain a segment of the population routinely drops the H from many words, so this is not likely Brit v. Yank thing,  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Herbaceous vs Herbal!
Since the word "herb" is used in two very divergent ways in normal English as opposed to Botany, I'm splitting the botanical def into its own page (a revamped "herbaceous" article) which is linked on the herb disambiguation page. Krnntp 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation is a wonderful way of saying devalued. Like herbaceous the meaning is lost. Hey there hopefully (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Clean up
When I press to edit the See also section I get the references section etc and I cant see how to fix it. Coul;d sopmeone do so and then remove the clean-up tag, SqueakBox 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Culinary but not food?
The article says 'Herbs (IPA: hə(ɹ)b, or əɹb; see pronunciation differences) are plants grown for any purpose other than food, wood or beauty.[1] Such uses include culinary'. Culinary means 'of or relating to cooking'; they're used to flavour different foods. As they are part of what we eat, doesn't that make them food?88.110.29.44 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not an expert but the definition of herb here seems pretty questionable.  For example the Oxford English Dictionary defines herb as "A plant of which the stem does not become woody and persistent (as in a shrub or a tree), but remains more or less soft and succulent, and dies down to the ground (or entirely) after flowering."  This is quite different from the definition on this page and seems to make a lot more sense. 192.189.157.11 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My dictionary has two definitions; one common and one botanical. The common definition is 'Any plant with leaves, seeds, or flowers used for flavouring, food, medicine, or perfume.' The botanical one is 'Any seed-bearing plant which does not have a woody stem and dies down to the ground after flowering.' The botanical definition fits with the one you've provided.--Jcvamp 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition
I have changed the definition from " seed-bearing plants without woody stems, which die down to the ground after flowering" to "plants that are valued for qualities such as medicinal properties, flavor, scent, or the like." Both definitions are from dictionary.com, but given that herbaceous plants and herbs have been given distinct pages this secondary definition is clearly appropriate here. Bay leaves are a herb, but the trees are not herbaceous. Conrad Leviston (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosemary
So rosemary is a shrub, but according to the definition, that would make it a medicinal herb, not a cullinary herb. This is rediculous! Change the def so it's looser and can include those odd cases, or exhaustively list the exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.71.37 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis sativa
In order to link Cannabis Sativa we need to establish a link to Rastafari through a reference. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition again
The definition given at the start in this version is "any plant that is valued for flavor, scent, medicinal, or other qualities". However the quotation is misleading. If you look at the original source, it says: "herb ... 1. a flowering plant whose stem above ground does not become woody. 2. such a plant [my emphasis] when valued for its medicinal properties, flavor, scent, or the like." So the correct definition from here is not "any plant ..." but "a herbaceous plant ...". This definition excludes e.g. Rosemary and Bay Laurel which the article includes.

The version of the New Oxford American Dictionary that came included in my Apple MacBook Pro gives the definition: "any plant with leaves, seeds, or flowers used for flavoring, food, medicine, or perfume ... a part of such a plant as used in cooking". According to Dictionary (software), this is the second edition, so I'm going to change the article to use this definition, which fits the content better. Note that it allows both the plant and the part used to be called herbs, which the old definition doesn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite article: "an herb" or "a herb"
The source of the article said "an herb". This is a perfectly fair comment within the relevant policies and must be respected. However, it's not logical to immediately follow "an herb" with the pronunciation, i.e. the pronunciation in which "an" is incorrect. "An herb" goes with ; "a herb" with. Better, in my view, is either: For the present, I've chosen (1) above. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Reversing the order of the IPA transcriptions
 * 2) Expanding the sentence to something like "an herb  or a herb "
 * I think the current version looks horrible. --John (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree; I would prefer a variant of (2), but was a bit concerned about following WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. What would you prefer? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd probably prefer something that avoids this awkwardness in the lead. The variant pronunciations are not a major feature of the subject. Could we get away with starting the article off "Herbs are... " and leave the discussion of pronunciation and indefinite articles for later in the article? --John (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally would be very happy with this. The counter argument might be that it is traditional in plant articles to put the pronunciation of the title immediately after the word is first used; however, this is usually for Latin names, not common English words. So I suggest you be WP:BOLD and make the change. If there are reasoned objections, then we can try again. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will think about it some more for now. Our main concern should be readability and usefulness to the reader, not consistency with other articles. --John (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I find the pronunciation information at the start of other articles very off-putting.Nadiatalent (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; when I've put this information in articles I've created, I've followed what seems to be the consensus, but I don't like it. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that pronunciation can be intrusive at the start of the lead para, I think it's essential here. This article has a long history of "correction" alternating between the different pronunciations. Since the IPA and an explanation has been included this has died down, but I'm sure it would return if we moved the explanation. Sadly many people do not read the rest of the article before wellying in with a change... I'm not sure why people should be so keen to correct this particular article – I suspect it's because it's a word that Brits and Americans don't often hear each other say, so an error is the only cause they can think of. Perhaps it's also relevant that in this case it's the Americans who use a more French style of pronunciation, which I think is less common than the reverse.


 * In purely linguistic terms, I would say that the pronunciation "erb" is not almost certainly not directly French influenced but simply reflects older English usage which did not pronounce initial "h" in many more words than now. In Britain, over-correction based on spelling put back the "h" except in very common words (e.g. hour), initially in middle-class speech, and then in all formal speech. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Having said all that, the current lead para is a mess – it was far clearer (though much too short) before this edit. For example, it's quite unnecessary to start with "except", as the point can be dealt with perfectly well later in the text or indeed in a hatnote. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at the whole of that edit, the key change was to the hatnote; before the edit, the beginning of the article was confused between "herb" in the culinary sense and "herbaceous plant" in the botanical sense. The precise wording might be capable of being improved, but I think that making the differentiation clear from the very start, not just in the hatnote which not everyone reads, is important. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As no-one else seemed to want to take my advice to be WP:BOLD, I have revised the lead myself. I think it now reads better and has not changed any meaning. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work Peter. --John (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, readability has been improved. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no article on the herb Gokulakanta why?
Please people start and article on this herb. 108.81.134.236 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Hygrophila auriculata. Gokulakanta will redirect there now. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Needed - North American Plants
It would be nice if someone would start an article called "List of North American Plants" with a Native and Non-Native section that leads to links on the various North American Plants. 2602:306:C518:62C0:6800:3456:2F93:AB51 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How about one that encompasses all countries? I find it a bit unfair to only include the US in such a general article. --FileComplaintHere (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What in the world is a Herbaceous plant!
This is for the comfort of the reader only. I suggest expanding on the the single link given to harbaceous plants to include this very important botanical definition. The one Google spits out is great, but I can't see the source: "any seed-bearing plant that does not have a woody stem and dies down to the ground after flowering." It gives a clearer picture to the layman. --FileComplaintHere (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
Might semi-protection be warranted here, due to the constant vandalism? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded  with them hundreds  08:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

– This article was just announced as this week's article for improvement. The single biggest improvement would be to move the disambiguation page to the base title and retarget incoming links to herb to more specific topics. "Herb" has at least 3 major plant-related senses: a "non-woody plant" (covered at herbaceous plant), plants used in herbal medicine (covered at herbalism, and medicinal herb), and leaves of usually non-woody plants used as culinary flavorings (as opposed to spices, which are not leaves; culinary herb redirects here and "herb" is the best overview of the culinary topic at present). Move the dab page to the base title in order to resolve incoming links that intend a more specific sense of "herb" and expand content on the culinary sense at culinary herb Plantdrew (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Herb → Culinary herb
 * Herb (disambiguation) → Herb


 * Support in terms of links within the English Wikipedia, there's no clear predominant usage, so treating "herb" as a term needing disambiguation is the best solution. I'll be happy to join in work on fixing incorrect links if this is done. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:DABCONCEPT this article deals with different types of herbs even though it is borderline a DICDEF.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * but note that "Culinary herb" redirects here, even though the article currently deals with other senses of "herb". 's proposal includes reducing the scope once moved, which seems to me to negate your objection. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it better to still retain a broad concept article, non of the other topics on the DAB page appear to be close competitors. To most people "Herb" means the plant of some kind, can't both aspects be covered in 1 article.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that editors wikilink to "Herb" when they really mean one or other of the several (not "both") more limited concepts. The bot-generated message to an editor when they've added a link to a dab is a spur to re-examine the wikilink. "Herb" could be made a set index article, I suppose, but then there's no warning when it's linked to. I don't think there's an ideal solution, but Plantdrew's proposal would, in my view, be an improvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name and above discussion. Herbs, in common name use, are 'culinary herbs', with apologies to Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - this seems to be a logical proposal as presented.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I feel a wide scoped article is better since we are dealing with more uses that cooking and medicine. Would also comment that currently readers can easily navigate to what topic they are looking for. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current article is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As a broad-concept article, the Herb article describes the primary topic. —  Newslinger  talk   09:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a move, but I would support a split to create a new article specifically about culinary herbs. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

History section
Currently history info is also contained within the different sections such as medicinal, culinary, etc. should we break up the history section completely by moving rest of the info into the relevant sections too? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, personally, as noted above, I'd rather split up the article, but if this doesn't happen, yes, split into sections. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have merged the history section into the smaller sections. Not particularly happy with result as some history content does not neatly fit into the subsections. Should we have a history section for general history of herbs? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Aromatic herbs?
I feel we are not discussing some uses of aromatic herbs that are not covered by religious or cosmetic sections. E.g. meadowsweet was sometimes strewn across floors in middle ages because of sweet smell.(Bown 1997) Should we start a new section for this? THere is after all the page strewing herb. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove section concerning spices?
Hello, Rebestalic here.

This page is about herbs, not comparisons between herbs and spices, so should the "Herbs generally refers to the leafy green or flowering parts of a plant (either fresh or dried), while spices are usually dried and produced from other parts of the plant, including seeds, bark, roots and fruits" section should be removed?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's just a one line comparison between herbs and spices. I feel it is encyclopedic to mention this, but not necessarily in the lead. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Idea repeated--removal?
Hello, Rebestalic here again.

I'm a bit concerned about how the introduction repeats itsself--first, it says, "...that are used for flavoring and garnishing food, medicinal purposes, or for fragrances", and then, in the next paragraph, "Herbs have a variety of uses including culinary, medicinal, and, in some cases, spiritual.' I think this should be treated as a problem.

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add a table listing some herbs and their uses and relationships?...
I'm thinking a table with columns something like this:

Species name (possibly also family, I know a lot of herbs are in the mint family)

Common name

Use (basically, just culinary/medical/religious/etc)

Form (there may be a better word for this... basically, aiming for the distinction of annual non-woody plant vs perennial non-woody plant vs shrub vs tree or whatever; and, either in the same column or a different one, which parts are typically used)

Or would something like that be better as a separate page? Does such a page already exist?... (I actually came here because I was wondering how many culinary herbs are vs aren't in the mint family, and if there are any other plant families that contain a lot of herbs) Tamtrible (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are potentially so many, remembering this is an international encyclopaedia, that only a separate article would work. Referencing would be an issue, though – a very large number would surely be needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A very meager beginning has been begun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_herbs_and_spices Tamtrible (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It has been renamed to Table of plants used as herbs or spices, but is under threat of deletion. Please add to it...  Tamtrible (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It got deleted, but I put a draft version (I think) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamtrible/Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices ; please help me get it ready for prime time?... Tamtrible (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * New draft version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices, please ignore the one on my talk page... Tamtrible (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say it was totally innappropriate. -Roxy . wooF 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, absolutely, totally, and wholly useless and inappropriate, not least because it's a WP:FORK of an existing article, so deletion is the correct answer. Also, you seem to have been spamming your desperate pleas over every plant-related talk page imaginable, which is disruptive and wasting the time of many different editors. Per WP:NOTFORUM, that is an abuse of talk pages, so please drop it. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced that the material at User:Tamtrible/Table of plants used as herbs or spices is "wholly useless". Yes, it's a fork of List of culinary herbs and spices, so is "inappropriate" as a separate article. On the other hand, that article is a bare list, whereas the table has useful information in separate columns. I wonder if adopting the format of 's List of culinary herbs and spices is a way forward? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)