text:
Orion Nebula

The Orion Nebula (also known as Messier 42, M42, or NGC 1976) is a diffuse nebula situated in the Milky Way, being south of Orion's Belt in the constellation of Orion, and is known as the middle "star" in the "sword" of Orion. It is one of the brightest nebulae and is visible to the naked eye in the night sky with an apparent magnitude of 4.0. It is 1,344 +/- away and is the closest region of massive star formation to Earth. The M42 nebula is estimated to be 24 light-years across (so its apparent size from Earth is approximately 1 degree). It has a mass of about 2,000 times that of the Sun. Older texts frequently refer to the Orion Nebula as the Great Nebula in Orion or the Great Orion Nebula.

The Orion Nebula is one of the most scrutinized and photographed objects in the night sky and is among the most intensely studied celestial features. The nebula has revealed much about the process of how stars and planetary systems are formed from collapsing clouds of gas and dust. Astronomers have directly observed protoplanetary disks and brown dwarfs within the nebula, intense and turbulent motions of the gas, and the photo-ionizing effects of massive nearby stars in the nebula.

Physical characteristics

The Orion Nebula is visible with the naked eye even from areas affected by light pollution. It is seen as the middle "star" in the "sword" of Orion, which are the three stars located south of Orion's Belt. The "star" appears fuzzy to sharp-eyed observers, and the nebulosity is obvious through binoculars or a small telescope. The peak surface brightness of the central region of M42 is about 17 Mag/arcsec2 and the outer bluish glow has a peak surface brightness of 21.3 Mag/arcsec2.

The Orion Nebula contains a very young open cluster, known as the Trapezium Cluster due to the asterism of its primary four stars within a diameter of 1.5 light years. Two of these can be resolved into their component binary systems on nights with good seeing, giving a total of six stars. The stars of the Trapezium Cluster, along with many other stars, are still in their early years. The Trapezium Cluster is a component of the much larger Orion Nebula cluster, an association of about 2,800 stars within a diameter of 20 light years. The Orion Nebula is in turn surrounded by the much larger Orion molecular cloud complex which is hundreds of light years across, spanning the whole Orion Constellation. Two million years ago the Orion Nebula cluster may have been the home of the runaway stars AE Aurigae, 53 Arietis, and Mu Columbae, which are currently moving away from the nebula at speeds greater than 100. km/s.

Coloration
Observers have long noted a distinctive greenish tint to the nebula, in addition to regions of red and of blue-violet. The red hue is a result of the Hα recombination line radiation at a wavelength of 656.3 nm. The blue-violet coloration is the reflected radiation from the massive O-class stars at the core of the nebula.

The green hue was a puzzle for astronomers in the early part of the 20th century because none of the known spectral lines at that time could explain it. There was some speculation that the lines were caused by a new element, and the name nebulium was coined for this mysterious material. With better understanding of atomic physics, however, it was later determined that the green spectrum was caused by a low-probability electron transition in doubly ionized oxygen, a so-called "forbidden transition". This radiation was impossible to reproduce in the laboratory at the time, because it depended on the quiescent and nearly collision-free environment found in the high vacuum of deep space.

History
There has been speculation that the Mayans of Central America may have described the nebula within their "Three Hearthstones" creation myth; if so, the three would correspond to two stars at the base of Orion, Rigel and Saiph, and another, Alnitak at the tip of the "belt" of the imagined hunter, the vertices of a nearly perfect equilateral triangle with Orion's Sword (including the Orion Nebula) in the middle of the triangle seen as the smudge of smoke from copal incense in a modern myth, or, in (the translation it suggests of) an ancient one, the literal or figurative embers of a fiery creation.

Neither Ptolemy's Almagest nor al Sufi's Book of Fixed Stars noted this nebula, even though they both listed patches of nebulosity elsewhere in the night sky; nor did Galileo mention it, even though he also made telescopic observations surrounding it in 1610 and 1617. This has led to some speculation that a flare-up of the illuminating stars may have increased the brightness of the nebula.

The first discovery of the diffuse nebulous nature of the Orion Nebula is generally credited to French astronomer Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, on November 26, 1610, when he made a record of observing it with a refracting telescope purchased by his patron Guillaume du Vair.

The first published observation of the nebula was by the Jesuit mathematician and astronomer Johann Baptist Cysat of Lucerne in his 1619 monograph on the comets (describing observations of the nebula that may date back to 1611). He made comparisons between it and a bright comet seen in 1618 and described how the nebula appeared through his telescope as:

"one sees how in like manner some stars are compressed into a very narrow space and how round about and between the stars a white light like that of a white cloud is poured out."

His description of the center stars as different from a comet's head in that they were a "rectangle" may have been an early description of the Trapezium Cluster. (The first detection of three of the four stars of this cluster is credited to Galileo Galilei in a February 4, 1617. )

The nebula was independently "discovered" (though visible to the naked eye) by several other prominent astronomers in the following years, including by Giovanni Battista Hodierna (whose sketch was the first published in De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus). In 1659, Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens published the first detailed drawing of the central region of the nebula in Systema Saturnium.

Charles Messier observed the nebula on March 4, 1769, and he also noted three of the stars in Trapezium. Messier published the first edition of his catalog of deep sky objects in 1774 (completed in 1771). As the Orion Nebula was the 42nd object in his list, it became identified as M42.

In 1865 English amateur astronomer William Huggins used his visual spectroscopy method to examine the nebula showing it, like other nebulae he had examined, was made up of "luminous gas". On September 30, 1880 Henry Draper used the new dry plate photographic process with an 11-inch (28 cm) refracting telescope to make a 51-minute exposure of the Orion Nebula, the first instance of astrophotography of a nebula in history. Another set of photographs of the nebula in 1883 saw a breakthrough in astronomical photography when amateur astronomer Andrew Ainslie Common used the dry plate process to record several images in exposures up to 60 minutes with a 36-inch (91 cm) reflecting telescope that he constructed in the backyard of his home in Ealing, west London. These images for the first time showed stars and nebula detail too faint to be seen by the human eye.

In 1902, Vogel and Eberhard discovered differing velocities within the nebula, and by 1914 astronomers at Marseilles had used the interferometer to detect rotation and irregular motions. Campbell and Moore confirmed these results using the spectrograph, demonstrating turbulence within the nebula.

In 1931, Robert J. Trumpler noted that the fainter stars near the Trapezium formed a cluster, and he was the first to name them the Trapezium cluster. Based on their magnitudes and spectral types, he derived a distance estimate of 1,800 light years. This was three times farther than the commonly accepted distance estimate of the period but was much closer to the modern value.

In 1993, the Hubble Space Telescope first observed the Orion Nebula. Since then, the nebula has been a frequent target for HST studies. The images have been used to build a detailed model of the nebula in three dimensions. Protoplanetary disks have been observed around most of the newly formed stars in the nebula, and the destructive effects of high levels of ultraviolet energy from the most massive stars have been studied.

In 2005, the Advanced Camera for Surveys instrument of the Hubble Space Telescope finished capturing the most detailed image of the nebula yet taken. The image was taken through 104 orbits of the telescope, capturing over 3,000 stars down to the 23rd magnitude, including infant brown dwarfs and possible brown dwarf binary stars. A year later, scientists working with the HST announced the first ever masses of a pair of eclipsing binary brown dwarfs, 2MASS J05352184–0546085. The pair are located in the Orion Nebula and have approximate masses of and  respectively, with an orbital period of 9.8 days. Surprisingly, the more massive of the two also turned out to be the less luminous.

In October 2023, astronomers, based on observations of the Orion Nebula with the James Webb Space Telescope, reported the discovery of pairs of rogue planets, similar in mass to the planet Jupiter, and called JuMBOs (short for Jupiter Mass Binary Objects).

Structure
The entirety of the Orion Nebula extends across a 1° region of the sky, and includes neutral clouds of gas and dust, associations of stars, ionized volumes of gas, and reflection nebulae.

The Nebula is part of a much larger nebula that is known as the Orion molecular cloud complex. The Orion molecular cloud complex extends throughout the constellation of Orion and includes Barnard's Loop, the Horsehead Nebula, M43, M78, and the Flame Nebula. Stars are forming throughout the entire Cloud Complex, but most of the young stars are concentrated in dense clusters like the one illuminating the Orion Nebula.

The current astronomical model for the nebula consists of an ionized (H II) region, roughly centered on Theta1 Orionis C, which lies on the side of an elongated molecular cloud in a cavity formed by the massive young stars. (Theta1 Orionis C emits 3-4 times as much photoionizing light as the next brightest star, Theta2 Orionis A.) The H II region has a temperature ranging up to 10,000 K, but this temperature falls dramatically near the edge of the nebula. The nebulous emission comes primarily from photoionized gas on the back surface of the cavity. The H II region is surrounded by an irregular, concave bay of more neutral, high-density cloud, with clumps of neutral gas lying outside the bay area. This in turn lies on the perimeter of the Orion Molecular Cloud. The gas in the molecular cloud displays a range of velocities and turbulence, particularly around the core region. Relative movements are up to 10 km/s (22,000 mi/h), with local variations of up to 50 km/s and possibly more.

Observers have given names to various features in the Orion Nebula. The dark bay that extends from the north into the bright region is known as "Sinus Magnus", also called the "Fish's Mouth". The illuminated regions to both sides are called the "Wings". Other features include "The Sword", "The Thrust", and "The Sail".

Star formation

The Orion Nebula is an example of a stellar nursery where new stars are being born. Observations of the nebula have revealed approximately 700 stars in various stages of formation within the nebula.

In 1979 observations with the Lallemand electronic camera at the Pic-du-Midi Observatory showed six unresolved high-ionization sources near the Trapezium Cluster. These sources were interpreted as partly ionized globules (PIGs). The idea was that these objects are being ionized from the outside by M42. Later observations with the Very Large Array showed solar-system-sized condensations associated with these sources. Here the idea appeared that these objects might be low-mass stars surrounded by an evaporating protostellar accretion disk. In 1993 observations with the Hubble Space Telescope have yielded the major confirmation of protoplanetary disks within the Orion Nebula, which have been dubbed proplyds. HST has revealed more than 150 of these within the nebula, and they are considered to be systems in the earliest stages of solar system formation. The sheer numbers of them have been used as evidence that the formation of planetary systems is fairly common in the universe.

Stars form when clumps of hydrogen and other gases in an H II region contract under their own gravity. As the gas collapses, the central clump grows stronger and the gas heats to extreme temperatures by converting gravitational potential energy to thermal energy. If the temperature gets high enough, nuclear fusion will ignite and form a protostar. The protostar is 'born' when it begins to emit enough radiative energy to balance out its gravity and halt gravitational collapse.

Typically, a cloud of material remains a substantial distance from the star before the fusion reaction ignites. This remnant cloud is the protostar's protoplanetary disk, where planets may form. Recent infrared observations show that dust grains in these protoplanetary disks are growing, beginning on the path towards forming planetesimals.

Once the protostar enters into its main sequence phase, it is classified as a star. Even though most planetary disks can form planets, observations show that intense stellar radiation should have destroyed any proplyds that formed near the Trapezium group, if the group is as old as the low mass stars in the cluster. Since proplyds are found very close to the Trapezium group, it can be argued that those stars are much younger than the rest of the cluster members.

Stellar wind and effects
Once formed, the stars within the nebula emit a stream of charged particles known as a stellar wind. Massive stars and young stars have much stronger stellar winds than the Sun. The wind forms shock waves or hydrodynamical instabilities when it encounters the gas in the nebula, which then shapes the gas clouds. The shock waves from stellar wind also play a large part in stellar formation by compacting the gas clouds, creating density inhomogeneities that lead to gravitational collapse of the cloud.

There are three different kinds of shocks in the Orion Nebula. Many are featured in Herbig–Haro objects:
 * Bow shocks are stationary and are formed when two particle streams collide with each other. They are present near the hottest stars in the nebula where the stellar wind speed is estimated to be thousands of kilometers per second and in the outer parts of the nebula where the speeds are tens of kilometers per second. Bow shocks can also form at the front end of stellar jets when the jet hits interstellar particles.
 * Jet-driven shocks are formed from jets of material sprouting off newborn T Tauri stars. These narrow streams are traveling at hundreds of kilometers per second, and become shocks when they encounter relatively stationary gases.
 * Warped shocks appear bow-like to an observer. They are produced when a jet-driven shock encounters gas moving in a cross-current.
 * The interaction of the stellar wind with the surrounding cloud also forms "waves" which are believed to be due to the hydrodynamical Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.

The dynamic gas motions in M42 are complex, but are trending out through the opening in the bay and toward the Earth. The large neutral area behind the ionized region is currently contracting under its own gravity.

There are also supersonic "bullets" of gas piercing the hydrogen clouds of the Orion Nebula. Each bullet is ten times the diameter of Pluto's orbit and tipped with iron atoms glowing in the infrared. They were probably formed one thousand years earlier from an unknown violent event.

Evolution
Interstellar clouds like the Orion Nebula are found throughout galaxies such as the Milky Way. They begin as gravitationally bound blobs of cold, neutral hydrogen, intermixed with traces of other elements. The cloud can contain hundreds of thousands of solar masses and extend for hundreds of light years. The tiny force of gravity that could compel the cloud to collapse is counterbalanced by the very faint pressure of the gas in the cloud.

Whether due to collisions with a spiral arm, or through the shock wave emitted from supernovae, the atoms are precipitated into heavier molecules and the result is a molecular cloud. This presages the formation of stars within the cloud, usually thought to be within a period of 10–30 million years, as regions pass the Jeans mass and the destabilized volumes collapse into disks. The disk concentrates at the core to form a star, which may be surrounded by a protoplanetary disk. This is the current stage of evolution of the nebula, with additional stars still forming from the collapsing molecular cloud. The youngest and brightest stars we now see in the Orion Nebula are thought to be less than 300,000 years old, and the brightest may be only 10,000 years in age. Some of these collapsing stars can be particularly massive, and can emit large quantities of ionizing ultraviolet radiation. An example of this is seen with the Trapezium cluster. Over time the ultraviolet light from the massive stars at the center of the nebula will push away the surrounding gas and dust in a process called photo evaporation. This process is responsible for creating the interior cavity of the nebula, allowing the stars at the core to be viewed from Earth. The largest of these stars have short life spans and will evolve to become supernovae.

Within about 100,000 years, most of the gas and dust will be ejected. The remains will form a young open cluster, a cluster of bright, young stars surrounded by wispy filaments from the former cloud.

title: Orion Nebula


text:
Talk:List of culinary herbs and spices

Caution
Please be aware, that this is not merely a list of herbs and spices, but of CULINARY herbs and spices. [ i.e. "safe to eat" ] I noticed, that Mandrake was listed. Perhaps, somewhere, it is indeed used in food, but by and large, this is considered a highly toxic plant and not for normal consumption.

I have removed the Mandrake listing and tagged the article, requesting the assistance of an expert; Hopefully to give a good once-over on the listings.

Administrators may wish to be on guard for people potentially trying to add poisonous plants to these and other similar listings. A disclaimer in the introduction and/or at potentially lethal plants may be needed as well. 71.126.10.33 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that someone put in a plant item - without its botanical name - and when i looked it up the listing said all parts of the plant were toxic. Ouch. Naturally, i have removed it. Ellenois (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Delineate herbs and spices
I think it would be helpful to define what the differences are, if any, between "herbs" and "spices", and indicate in the list which is which. - 152.76.0.130 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Seems like that would turn this page into two very long lists. If separate lists are needed (why?), each should probably have its own page. Alternately, turn this list into a giant wikitable that could be sorted by name or type (herb/spice)? CaliJim (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Opening
Surely the list of herbs at the beginning should either be removed, or expanded to include all the herbs appearing later in the article?

 * I tend to agree that teh first list shoulb be expanded and other lists removed, though there might be a case for listing twice according to common and botanical names quercus robur 11:09 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Template
Attention spice/herb lovers, I have created a template for all herb/spice pages here: WikiProject Herbs and Spices. Please contribute if you are interested. The first stage is to brainstorm the content and headings of each article etc... Then the next step will be create a template using a known spice, like cloves, or cumin on a subpage. Then eventually convert all the pages to the new template format. Could take a few years. But eventually wikipedia.org might be the ultimate source for reliable information about spices and herbs. dave 21:51, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Split
It seems to me that this is really two articles and should be split into a "List of culinary herbs" and a "List of medicinal plants". There would be some overlap, but the current limits of the list are too nebulous in my opinion. Comments? WormRunner 06:50, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Definitely. I'm creating List of Herbs And Their Purported Uses. Family Guy Guy 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Medicinal use
I don't think herbs and spices go well together theres so many spices that isn't herbs. and so many herbs that are used medicinally. Better to have three lists with links between "List of herbs", "List of spices" and "List of medicinal herbs". And maybe also a "List of culinary herbs" Spices is such a broad field with both non herb spices and a lot of different mixtures that the list will become unorganized with the herb list there also. Also most of the food herbs can be used medicinally even if they arn't always so "strong".

As I and my wife grow and sell herb plants I will probably contribute a lot to the herb list over time. I just found out about the wikipedia so I haven't had time to do mush yet. I did add some info to the lemon grass and mint. Sbyholm 13:30, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The word 'herb' in it's broad sense is too inclusive to be addressed in this list, and should be addressed in the 'Herb' entry. When building this list, we must concern ourselves with narrow enough definitions to make the list functionable and useful. This is really a list of three types of items. 1) Medicinal herbs, as a topic entirely other than 2) Culinary Herbs and 3) Culinary Spices. The difference between spices and herbs is not an arbitrary one.  Herbs, culinarily speaking, are the leaves of plants, and can be used fresh (though they are often dried).  Spices are the twigs, stems, fruit of plants, and are ALWAYS used dried.  This is an important distinction both culinarily and botanically.

It is clear that this list should be divided into appropriate thirds, though they should link to each other as reference points. This list needs to be consistent with the entries made for both herbs and spices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.60.156 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

People keep adding purely medicinal herbs to this list. And i keep removing them. I've reorganized the opening sentences with more stress that this list is NOT for medicinal herbs. I'm sure it's hopeless, but i'll keep trying to maintain it. Ellenois (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Split 2
I was browsing the new List of herbs and spices and though: why can't the list of spices be on the [spice] page and the list of herbs on the [herb] page, it would make the structure more logical i think. Comments?? Sbyholm 13:46, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with your idea. But my idea was to have herbs and spices on the same page.  For example, cinnamon, basil, pepper, oregano are all very similar, they are all used to flavour food dishes...it seems like they should be listed together somewhere?  How about no separate herb and spice page, but one page about spices AND herbs, and we can put the list there?  Herb and spice could redirect there.  I think this makes sense for now, since both articles are small.  If they get big, they could be split off later.  Any other ideas?  dave 17:37, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that "herbs and spices" naturally belong together. The division is unnatural and largely a result of historical trading patterns.  However, also I think that while there is a great deal of overlap, a medicinal plant list is better kept separate from the culinary plant list.  WormRunner 17:55, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The division is not at all unnatural, especially given culinarily usage, which is 2/3 of the purpose of this article. It is true that cinnamon, basil, pepper, and oregano are all similar. However it is also true that basil and oregano are more similar, as are cinnamon and black pepper. Former as herbs and latter as spices. There is a connection, but however the issue is resolved, we must remember that this article is supposed to make things more clear in our minds. Neglecting distinctions that form the basis of our language will not help our clarity.

Adding
I'm adding some more herbs and spices. I'm at K right now. I'll finish the rest later.

Some comments
Some comments:
 * Salt is not a spice, no more so than sugar. Salt is salt and really cannot be further categorized in a culinary sense.
 * Bay leaves are an herb, not a spice.
 * I would consider Rocket a salad green, not an herb.
 * Vanilla is a flavoring, not a spice, IMO; it is usually used as an extract, and with the intent of imparting a dominant flavor rather than a supportive one, making it similar to lemon rind, orange extract, almonds, coconut.

Thought I'd point these out here. I'll change the article in a few days if no one objects. UninvitedCompany 16:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree about vanilla. If vanilla should go, so should cinnamon. Also, it is not generally used as an extract. You scrape the marrow out of the pod. - Burschik

Hmm, I hadn't noticed the comment by Uninvited Company until now. I disagree about all of these except Rocket, which could be excluded, though it wouldn't have to be. Just because bay leaf is a leaf, does not make it an herb. It's part of a tree and is generally considered a spice. Vanilla is just as much a spice as cinnamon, and for that matter lemon rind qualifies in my opinion. WormRunner | Talk 16:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the definition of herb offered by Wikipedia seems to be "the green, leafy part of the plant", which would make bay leaves a herb and not a spice. Maybe we need a good definition of terms first. - Burschik

I agree. Salt and sugar do not belong at all. Bay leaves are indeed an herb (leaf) as opposed to a spice (stems, twigs, fruit). Rocket is a green, as per the wiki-definition of herb being a plant used for flavoring rather than substance. However, vanilla is indeed a spice, being the dried fruit of a plant. Just because it is sometimes used as a 'flavoring' does not change what it indeed is in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.60.156 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

add latin names
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fruits does a much better job of remembering to add latin names!

Maybe even have a table sorted by latin names.

Not everybody lives where you do.

Some references in the "See Also" section are not displayed. They list references to names of herbs and spices in other languages. They are revealed only when editing the "See Also" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk sze (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Back in February i added Latin names for everything. New items have been added, not always with Latin names. I check back every couple months to add Latin names, and remove purely medicinal plants.

 * I think listing ONLY by Latin names will make things difficult to find. The idea, it seems to me - as this is the wikipedia in English - is to list the herbs and spices by their common English names.

 * In some cases there isn't an English name. In those cases, i have been adding the country or culture in which they are most commonly used. Because English-speaking countries such as America, Australia, Canada, England, etc. often have significant populations from other places, i think keeping them here may be informative.
 * Ellenois (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of culinary herbs and spices
I have changed this page to List of culinary herbs and spices. As it stood it didn't make sense. Herbs are a type of plant, so the list could have included medicinal herbs, or herbs that aren't used for anything. If there is a list that includes all herbs, it should not contain spices, as spices are purely culinary.JohnnyMrNinja 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Herbs de Provence?
In the header it says that curry powder does not count as a culinary herb or spice, since it is a mixture. Down in the list "Herbs de Provence", which is a mixture, is listed. Not wikipedia clued enough to know what to do about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.32.130 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, 'Herbes de Provence' should have its own wiki-entry, but it does not belong on this list, as per the defining rules of the list, ie curry powder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.60.156 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of mixed spices on the list. Garam Masala, Tandoori Masala, etc. I personally don't have a problem with those being on the list since it is a culinary list. As a user, I'd prefer mixtures on the list rather than all the medicinal herbs listed which are not used to specifically flavor the food. I think they should be purged, preferably with some kind of tea infusion.

Five Spice is a mix, Curry Powder was rejected on that basis
If curry Powder is to be excluded from this list because it is a mixture of spices, surely Chinese Five Spice should also.

Sichuan (Szechuan?) pepper listed three times
Is there an agreed-upon spelling for this region of China that can be applied to the name of the spice? --CorbettGM (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the two redundant listings and kept the one in proper alphabetic position. I kept the spelling 'Sichuan' because that appears to be the Wikipedia preferred spelling for the name of the province in question.  Not gonna touch the whole Sichuan-Szechwan-Szechuan debate over there.  --CorbettGM (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Banana?
Why is banana included here? If we're including any plant that is used to add colour or flavouring, surely tomato, lemon, and many other plants not normally regarded as herbs could also be used here? I would propose to delete banana. --rossb (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's gone. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 02:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Listings Under Foreign/Botanical Names
I've noticed certain seasonings have been listed under non-English names when there is an English name for the seasoning - ex. Javitri (mace). This seems to me to be inappropriate on this page and should be removed, in my opinion.

On the other hand, there are herbs and spices that have no name in English, but are used in English-speaking countries when we cook various cuisines. In these cases, is there an established standard? Do we use the most common foreign name or do we list by botanical name? For example, there is both Culantro (Eryngium foetidum) under "C" and (Eryngium foetidum) Culantro under "E". -- Ellenois (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dried Fruits Used as Flavorings
There are some items in this list - such as Amchar - which are dried fruits. My opinion is that they don't belong here, but i hesitate to remove them. They are flavorings... Any other opinions? Ellenois (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, no one said anything, so i removed Amchar - i think dried fruit pulp does not qualify as an herb or spice, or we'd have to include raisins, prunes, and dried apricots here. Ellenois (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Amchoor may be a powdered fruit, but it's used as a spice: it is used in small amounts for flavouring, like many other fruits which are used as spices (coriander, cumin, nutmeg, cardamom, etc). If we can't have fruits we'll have to get rid of a lot of spices... Richard New Forest (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I've removed Tamarind. Sure it adds flavor, but so do apricots, apples, lemons, etc.

 * As for fruits vs. spices, yes, spices are often the "fruit" of a plant.

 * But a fruit it often used as such. Amchar is dried mango, and mangoes are eaten out of hand. Tamarind is a fruit - it's sour, but so is a lemon - and it can be used as a fruit in beverages and candies.

 * On the other hand, a spice is not the juicy part - it is most often the seed inside. Take Nutmeg, for example - outside is a yellow-orange fruit which can be made into jam/preserves and candied fruit. Peel off the fruit, and there is the mace, a glorious shade of red before drying, wrapped around a hard shell. One must crack the shell to get to the nutmeg. So, yeah, from a fruit, but not the fruit pulp.

 * Amchar is dried fruit pulp. And Tamarind is somewhat dried fruit pulp.

 * I think they differ significantly from spices in consistency, use, and origins.

 * If you want to keep Amchar here, why not add in Orange, since dried orange peels are used as a flavoring?

 * There has to be a line drawn somewhere, or we could be adding every bit of every plant that adds flavor to a dish of food.
 * Ellenois (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Onions, Garlic, and other Allia
Someone recently added Onion Powder and Twin leaf Onion to the list. I have deleted them. Onions, garlic, and other members of the Allium family do add flavor, but i think they do not belong in a list of herbs and spices, since they are primarily vegetables and often used as such in cooking. Any other opinion? Ellenois (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be in favor of excluding all members of the allium family from the list. The culinary uses of chives (Allium schoenoprasum) and jimbu (Allium hypsistum) certainly seem to qualify those species as herbs.  Chukhung (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Entries for the Same Species
In a few cases, the same species of plant produces more than one herb or spice. Is there any guidance on how to handle these situations? When should there be multiple entries for the same species?

I note that there is only one entry for fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) even though fenugreek leaves (an herb) and fenugreek seeds (a spice) have quite different culinary uses. On the other hand, Coriandrum sativum shows up in two separate entries as both cilantro (the herb) and coriander (the spice). Similarly, the two different parts of Myristica fragrans are listed under nutmeg and mace.

There is only a single entry for Piper nigrum ("Pepper: black, white and green"). Presumably this is because the different varieties of pepper are simply the result of different processing of the same seeds. But Camellia sinensis shows up in separate entries for "green tea" and "tea" even though the only real difference between green tea and other teas is how the leaves are processed after picking. --Chukhung (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Good question... I don't think there's any problem with having more than one entry for the same species: anyone looking at the article will soon find out what other spices or herbs the species produces. However, it would be good to have some cross-referencing in this article too – for example something like: "Cilantro, Coriandrum sativum (also see coriander seed)"  Richard New Forest (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 * In the case of foenugreek leaves, they are used as a leafy green, not as an herb. The seed, on the other hand, is commonly used as a spice. So foenugreek leaves don't belong in this list, while foenugreek seeds do. On the other hand, cilantro and coriander seeds are two different parts of the same plant (in different stages of its life) used in very different ways. Many people i know don't even realize that they're from the same plant. But since i've been including all the botanical names it shouldn't be too hard to discover on the page for Coriandrum sativum that they're from the same plant.

 * Someone else may disagree, but i think cross referencing will defeat the purpose of this as a handy list and not a complete and detailed article. It will become harder to scan through - heck, my adding the cuisines of origin of herbs and spices without English names already makes the list more cumbersome.
 * Ellenois (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Oh, yeah, and i try to keep most items listed only once - other than those that produce an herb and a spice - but there are one or two that are in the list twice. I should clean that up.
 * Ellenois (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Surely we can't disqualify things from being spices just because they're used for other things at other times. Mustard doesn't stop being a spice just because you can deep-fry with the oil, use it as a medicinal poultice, cook the leaves, or use the plant as green manure.  If something is used as a spice, I think it should go in this list.  Yes, perhaps citrus rind ought to be in there too.

 * Incidentally, the page is "herbs and spices", not just spices, so don't fenugreek leaves belong here too? Richard New Forest (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, I certainly use dried fenugreek leaves as a culinary herb (as per the Wikipedia definition: "Culinary herbs are distinguished from vegetables in that, like spices, they are used in small amounts and provide flavor rather than substance to food.")  And I don't think I'm the only person to do so either.  If you Google "kasturi methi" or just "methi" you'll find a number of interesting Indian recipes that use small amounts of dried fenugreek leaves for flavoring (try "aloo methi" if you ever get the chance--it's delicious).  I also note that fresh fenugreek leaves are used as an herb in some Persian dishes, notably Qormeh sabzi.

 * I agree with Richard New Forest below above. If something is legitimately used as a culinary herb or spice, I think it belongs on this list (and, to get back to the original question, maybe more than once--as an herb and a spice). I would include everything that meets the Wikipedia definition (from the spice page):
 * "A spice is a dried seed, fruit, root, bark, leaf, or vegetative substance used in nutritionally insignificant quantities as a food additive for the purpose of flavour, colour, or as a preservative....[S]pices are distinguished from herbs, which are leafy, green plant parts used for flavouring purposes."
 * I see no problem with having a substance on this list that is also commonly (or even predominantly) used in ways that don't meet the above definition as long as some some cuisine in the world truly uses that substance as a culinary herb or spice. Chukhung (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetic order
OK, i've got another question: should items such as: Indian Bay-leaf, Malabathrum, Tejpat (Cinnamomum tamala, C. tejpata); Indonesian Bay-Leaf, Daun salam (Eugenia polyantha, Syzygium polyanthum); and Indonesian Cinnamon (Cinnamomum burmannii, Cassia vera) continue to be listed under the rubric "I"? Or should they be listed as Bay-leaf, Indian Bay-leaf, Indonesian and Cinnamon, Indonesian ?? Ellenois (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuts and Seeds That Aren't Spices... Or Are They?
For reasons that may be purely idiosyncratic, i do NOT consider poppy seeds and sesame seeds as spices. While either or both may be sprinkled on top of breadstuffs, both are also ground into pastes, poppy seeds to be used in European pastries and sesame seeds to be used in Southwest and East Asian cuisine in ways much like peanuts (which aren't really nuts, i know) or almonds (which really ARE nuts).

So, i think that poppy seeds and sesame seeds do NOT belong on this list.

But i will await comments for a couple months before removing them... Ellenois (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * A spice is something used for flavour: those seeds are being used for that in that context. I don't think it matters whether they're used in another way at another time.  Same argument as above, really.  Richard New Forest (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for responding.

 * A spice is not merely something used to add flavor. Wine is used for flavor, but that doesn't qualify it as a spice. Parts of all sorts of fruits are used for flavor, but that doesn't qualify any as a spice. Cheeses are often used for flavor, but that doesn't qualify any as a spice. Giving or adding flavor alone is not the definition of a spice, since just about every ingredient in a recipe adds flavor.

 * Definitions of spices point out that they are *pungent* and *aromatic* and only a small quantity is needed. Additionally, spices are roots, barks, seeds (or seed-like fruits), whereas culinary herbs are aromatic leaves. A carrot is a root - this alone does not make it a spice.

 * So while poppy and sesame seeds are seeds, being a seed and having flavor aren't quite enough, in my opinion, to qualify them as spices. Rather, they are generally used like nuts, as in the uses i mentioned above. Chopped or ground nuts are sprinkled on the tops of pastries and added to breads the same way that poppy and sesame seeds are sprinkled on the tops of and added to the doughs of breadstuffs. In all their uses poppy and sesame seeds are used much like other nuts - for both flavor, texture, and crunch.

 * As i mentioned, poppy and sesame seeds are ground into pastes and used the way nuts are. In my study of various cuisines both historical and modern, i have never heard of any actual spices ground into paste and used as a pastry filling, because their flavors are much too strong, whereas poppy and sesame seeds, while flavorful, are mild. Spices are often used to flavor poppy seed pastes in sweets, and spices are often used to flavor sesame seed paste used in sweet and savory dishes. But the poppy and sesame seeds themselves are not spices.
 * Ellenois (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 * As I pointed out above, it's not relevant what else a spice might be used for in other contexts. However, your point about nuts may be worth more consideration.  Chopped nuts can indeed be used in small amounts for flavour, and I agree that they don't seem as "spicy" as say chilli or turmeric.  But spices do not have to be "pungent" – some are not strong: surely there such a thing as a mild spice?  If sesame and poppy seed (and indeed nuts) are not spices, what are they?  Exactly how does sesame differ from, say, toasted cumin or caraway?  It hinges on what our definitions of "spice" and "herb" are - and we can't rely on our own idiosyncratic gut feelings.  Do we have any reffed definitions or lists?  Richard New Forest (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the elements on this list should meet the Wikipedia definitions of culinary herbs and spices. If "pungency" is required for a substance to be considered a spice, then there should be a change in Wikipedia definition given on the spice page--which currently starts out with the following:

 * A spice is a dried seed, fruit, root, bark, leaf, or vegetative substance used in nutritionally insignificant quantities as a food additive for the purpose of flavour, colour, or as a preservative that kills harmful bacteria or prevents their growth.

 * I see no reason why the Wikipedia List of Culinary Herbs and Spices should use different definitions than the Wikipedia main entries for Culinary Herb and Spice. Let's at least try to make Wikipedia internally consistent.

 * That being said, I think there's a good argument to be made that nuts are typically not used in "nutritionally insignificant quantities".  If we're going to ban sesame seeds from the list, then that's the clause in the current definition of "spice" that I'd look to for support.  Chukhung (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Most nuts are seeds, although a number of items used in cuisine as "nuts" do not meet the definition - see the Wikipedia article Nut_(fruit). Many spices are seeds. But not all seeds are nuts and not all seeds are spices. The definition in the Wikipedia article on spices may indeed be incomplete. Other dictionary definitions specify that spices are pungent, meaning strong in flavor. I have used turmeric both dried and fresh, and i don't see it as parallel to chilis, which Richard New Forest does. I'm currently looking for expanded references for a better or expanded definition for Spice.

 * In my preference to remove poppy seeds and sesame seeds from the list of spices, i am not relying on my gut, as Richard New Forest seems to imply. I have many years of studying and cooking European cuisines; of studying, cooking, and teaching non-European cuisines; and of researching, cooking, and teaching historic European and non-European cuisines. So my belief is based in study and experience.

 * As far as Exactly how does sesame differ from, say, toasted cumin or caraway?, as Richard asked, well, try filling a pastry with nothing but toasted whole or ground cumin or caraway. Their flavors are far too strong to be used in such large quantities. They are used in small quantities in recipes for a reason, because they are spices. Poppy seeds and sesame seeds, on the other hand, can be used in that way with very pleasant results.

 * Also, if we add sesame seeds and poppy seeds to the list of spices, then it seems to me we will need to add all edible seeds (such as pumpkin seeds and sunflower seeds which are also sprinkled on the top of bread stuffs) and nuts (such as chestnuts, hazelnuts, and pecans). And we should also add non-nut items used culinarily as nuts - (almonds (the edible seeds of drupe fruits), Brazil nuts (the seed from a capsule), cashews (seeds, not nuts), coconuts (dry, fibrous drupes), macadamia nuts (a creamy white kernels of Macadamia integrifolia), peanuts (seeds, not nuts), pine nuts (seeds of several species of coniferous pine trees), pistachios (the seeds of a thin-shelled drupe), walnuts (the edible seeds of drupe fruits), as defined in Nut_(fruit).
 * Ellenois (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 * A gut feeling based on many years of experience is still OR... We do need published refs for any definition we use.

 * Yet again, it doesn't matter what else a spice is used for as well as being a spice: if it is used as a spice, the other use doesn't disqualify it. Conversely, when considering whether, say, sesame and cumin are comparable as spices, it is irrelevant whether you can fill pastry with them.  And if we did include sesame and poppy seed, that would not automatically mean we had to include other seedy and nutty things which are not used as spices.

 * I think the misleading premise here is that each plant product has to fall into one class of things to the exclusion of all others – this is clearly not true, as shown by my mustard example above. Once you accept it not to be true, then surely it is only the use as a spice that needs to be considered.

 * I still think that it's possible to have mild spices, and if it is, then I think sesame and poppy fall into the def – though I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by a good ref or three. Incidentally, pungent does not in fact mean "strong in flavour", but "having a stinging odor".  Many spices are not pungent at all, having non-stinging but distinctive flavours.  Some can be either: raw garlic is pungent, cooked garlic is not.  Some things are even pungent with very little actual scent: for example common restharrow (Ononis repens) doesn't really smell of anything much, but does sting the nose.  Haven't tried eating it though...  Richard New Forest (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, i have been reading definitions and descriptions of poppy seed and sesame seed in a number of English language dictionaries and i have not yet found one that defines/describes either of them as a spice. I am removing them from the list. Ellenois (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Ellenois
 * Additionally, in the Wikipedia articles on both poppy seeds and sesame seeds they are never described as spices. They are both described as "oil seeds" and as having a "nutty flavour", and both are described in some detail as primary ingredients in various sweets, as well as some uses in savory dishes - while they many enhance flavor, but they are never mentioned as being spice. I add this just so it is clear my decision to remove them from this list of culinary herbs and spices was not based purely on my over 45 years of personal experiences as chef and student of the world's cuisines and culinary history. Ellenois (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * My $.02... I think they should remain as spices, because 1. they are more often used in a spice-like manner than "normal" nuts are (eg sprinkled on baked goods, put in salad dressings, etc), and 2. people rarely if ever just eat a handful of poppy seeds or sesame seeds. The fact that they *can* be a bulk ingredient in some applications doesn't necessarily disqualify them--isn't there at least one salad that's basically parsley with some seasonings?  We still call parsley an herb.  Tamtrible (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Mint Species
There are 25 species of mint, many used in food, some only in herb teas, some grown only as ornamental plants. Peppermint and spearmint, the two most common, are already listed. Someone has added apple mint. This opens the door to add all 25, which seems unnecessary to me. Anyone else think differently? Ellenois (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I say if it's a separate species, include it. Are the mints the only case of this?  --Nessie (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, peppermint, a very commonly used mint, is a hybrid, and there are 10 hybrid mints listed on the wikipedia Mint page, meaning up to at least 35 mints could potentially be listed. To the best of my knowledge, apple mint is not commonly used in cooking, and is more often an herb tea.
 * The other seasoning i can think of off the top of my head that has the same potential to be represented in the list in large number is capsicum, chili peppers. There are 5 separate species, and many different varieties within each species; for example, 25 within C. annum, and 7 within C. chinense.
 * I am not sure exactly how inclusive this list is intended to be. Ellenois (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My idea of a rule-of-thumb is to just go with species, unless there is a notable subspecies that has its own wiki page. Though not a spice/herb, Brassica oleracea is one species that has broccoli, cabbage, brussel sprouts, etc., so for something like that, I'd include each subspecies.  For the mints, Apple mint has its own page, but pineapple mint does not.  So I'd say include apple mint but not pineapple mint.  For the peppers, Paprika is a Capsicum annuum that needs its own listing, but many of the C. Annuums could probably be covered with a list of the major species used, a link to List of capsicum cultivars, and perhaps adding the Template:Capsicum Cultivars. --Nessie (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure exactly how inclusive this list is intended to be. Ellenois (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My idea of a rule-of-thumb is to just go with species, unless there is a notable subspecies that has its own wiki page. Though not a spice/herb, Brassica oleracea is one species that has broccoli, cabbage, brussel sprouts, etc., so for something like that, I'd include each subspecies.  For the mints, Apple mint has its own page, but pineapple mint does not.  So I'd say include apple mint but not pineapple mint.  For the peppers, Paprika is a Capsicum annuum that needs its own listing, but many of the C. Annuums could probably be covered with a list of the major species used, a link to List of capsicum cultivars, and perhaps adding the Template:Capsicum Cultivars. --Nessie (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Very incorrect entry - 'Colored People'?
There appears to be an entry under C for 'Colored People' which links to the article referencing people of African-American or similarly grouped heritages. This seems completely wrong and I assume someone's added it for 'fun'. I don't edit Wikipedia, so while I recommend it get removed/corrected, I don't feel I have the right to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.177.234 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you, yes that is vandalism: I have reverted it and warned the user. Please see further message on your talk page.  Richard New Forest (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Paprika is not an herb
I just wanted to let you all know that paprika is not an herb. It is a powder made by grinding peppers, and a pepper is clearly a vegetable, not an herb. Using the umbrella term "herbs and spices" is kind of stupid as some spices don't come from an herb (like paprika) and many herbs are not spices. It's as though one considered that herbs and spices are pretty much the same thing, but that would be insulting to many cooks from many countries.

I have to agree with comments above that spices and herbs should definitely not be combined in the same list. It is just plain confusing. To be clear, spices are substances of plant origin that are added to food to flavor it, while herbs are actual plants used as is, not dried and not as an extract. For example, dried flaked parsley leaves are a spice while fresh parsley is an herb. Cilantro is an herb and definitely not a spice, while its seed, coriander, is definitely a spice.

But paprika definitely isn't an herb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.42.162 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * dear "74.59.42.162", paprika is indeed not an herb. It is a spice. It is a not eaten as a vegetable like some other peppers (although technically peppers are fruits), but only used as a seasoning, so it belongs on this list. Ellenois (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitions of 'Herb' & 'Spice'
I've been reading over several years worth of discussion regarding which plants in this list do and don't constitute herbs or spices and whether or not the list should be split in two for the purposes for clarification.

My overriding conclusion from all that I've read is that there is a great deal of confusion as to the definitions of the terms 'herb' and 'spice' adopted for the purposes of this article. I suggest that these definitions be clarified in discussion here before being stated far more clearly at the top of the list page to minimise confusion for both readers and editors.

To that end, here are the definitions currently in use on the respective 'herb' and 'spice' Wikipedia pages:

Herb:
 * "...any plants "with leaves, seeds, or flowers used for flavoring, food, medicine, or perfume" or parts of "such a plant as used in cooking"."

Spice:
 * "...a dried seed, fruit, root, bark, or vegetative substance used in nutritionally insignificant quantities as a food additive for flavor, color, or as a preservative that kills harmful bacteria or prevents their growth.[citation needed] It may be used to flavour a dish or to hide other flavours.[1] In the kitchen, spices are distinguished from herbs, which are leafy, green plant parts used for flavoring or as garnish."

It is clear to me that these definitions already overlap significantly so that splitting the pages would be impossible unless further clarification were provided. My personal opinion is that the two terms are inherently inseparable in this context and that they should not be split.

Furthermore, if these definitions are to be accepted in their broadest sense, I believe that many of the substances which have already been flagged up and/or removed by editors should actually be returned to the list. I speak as someone with a background in horticulture & ethnobotany with a focus on traditional herbal medicine systems, but much less so in cuisine. I'm very curious to hear the opinions of others. - Bittercress (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

C
I noticed an oddity under this letter: "Cilantro#Leaves..." I am not sure what purpose is intended by the '#', but it seems to have had the effect of deleting the word 'leaves' in the finished article. Is it an error perhaps? Dawright12 (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Using "Cilantro#Leaves|Cilantro" links directly to the section "leaves" in the cilantro article, while showing only the word "cilantro" in the article. It was presumably done to differentiate between the leaves and the seeds (see "coriander seed" a bit further down). - Takeaway (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cudweed
For the Vietnamese herb referred to as cudweed, should the species be corrected to Pseudognaphalium affine? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone up for completely changing this page?...
I have been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices, after it was deleted as allegedly being a fork of this page (I argue it isn't, quite, as it has a somewhat different focus). It currently contains most of the information on this page, plus a lot of information *not* on this page (including a few herbs that are medicinal rather than culinary). However, thus far almost all of the entries are, in fact, culinary herbs and/or spices, so I would not in any way object to the page I am working on (a table, with additional information besides the common name and the species) being used to replace this page--I would not consider it a significant loss to have to drop the few non-culinary herbs thus far listed. But I do not wish to simply take over a page I have never previously contributed to, and in any case I have neither the knowledge nor the spoons to add *everything* currently on this page to that one. So, I ask those who *are* regular contributors to this page which of the following they would prefer:

1. Wholesale replacement, as is (or possibly with subtraction of the few non-culinary herbs) of this page with mine

2. Continued work on the draft until it contains all of the entries on this page, then replacement

3. Turning this page into a table somewhat different from mine (a task I would probably not contribute to initially, though I might work to improve it after it was begun)

4. None of the above

Thoughts? Tamtrible (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Absent any objection, I support the proposed revision, though it would be helpful if it was sourced (I presume sources can be found in the articles on the individual topics). It is otherwise fairly broad and thorough. BD2412  T 05:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 1. Unnecessary.  2.  Not enough benefit  3. Too vague.Ttocserp 12:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The proposal as written is too vague to permit a reasonable response. I agree with Ttocserp's other comments as well. MonteGargano (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Um... what's vague about it? I have a table that contains most (though not quite all) of the entries on this page, along with some additional information (a few culinary herbs that aren't on this page; some non-culinary herbs; and additional information on each plant).  It can be transferred as is, I (and possibly others) can keep plinking at it until it does, in fact, contain everything on this page and then it can be transferred, someone can turn this page into a different table (a sortable table is a much more functional format than a mere list), or the page can be left as is.  If you have questions about the page I have made, I put a link right there for you to look at it.  Tamtrible (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the proposed table adds a number of useful fields including that part of the plant that is used. I believe that a careful integration would add value to Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I've had a go at updating the article from Draft:Table of plants used as herbs or spices to break a logjam. The draft version has more citations and looks better. 's objection looks, ironically, too vague. Specifically, I'd be interested to know why an article with 14 citations is not as good as one with three, one of which is a dictionary definition, and one of which is eatweeds.co.uk (what makes that a reliable source)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Because it's an article with a different scope. So, to change that, you have to get consensus, which you just assumed.Ttocserp Ttocserp 15:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm following the tried a tested bold, revert, discuss cycle. As I see the discussion above, I see stronger arguments for change, while those against are weak. So there does indeed look like a consensus to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Go learn the rules.Ttocserp 15:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you haven't got any significant arguments but are stooping to personal attacks, then I assume there is a consensus after all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not got consensus. Until and unless you have, you cannot change the scope of an article like this; it's like moving the title.
 * This article. after extensive debate on the talk page going back a long time - years, in fact - is about culinary herbs. It is not about medicinal herbs (a huge, specialist subject) or, for that matter, herbs for recreational use (ditto). Ttocserp Ttocserp 12:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are entitled to a principled statement, so here it is.

1. The current head of the article defines its scope:

"This is a list of culinary herbs and spices. Specifically these are food or drink additives of mostly botanical origin used in nutritionally insignificant quantities for flavoring or coloring."

"This list does not contain fictional plants such as aglaophotis, or recreational drugs such as tobacco."

"This list is not for plants used primarily for herbal teas, nor for purely medicinal plant products, such herbal teas, nor for purely medicinal plant products, such as valerian."

That definition has been in place for years. It was arrived at after detailed discussion on this talk page. Since then, many hundreds of edits have been made, modified or rejected, all according to those consensual criteria.

Over time, the transparency of the process has enhanced the article’s reliability value. I believe there are now few, if any, genuine culinary herbs and spices that exist but are not mentioned in this article. Conversely, there are probably few items on this list (if any) that are not genuine, accepted culinary herbs or spices. There is always some room for improvement, of course, and so the adjustment process continues.

In short, this is a mature article on a conceptually simple, coherent topic that represents the work of hundreds of editors over a long time according to well-defined, consensual criteria.

2.	Now we are being asked if we are “up for” completely changing this page. Just how radical the change would be has not been fully considered.

The new criteria proposed are these: "This page is a sortable table of plants used as herbs or spices. This includes plants used as seasoning agents in foods or beverages (including teas), plants used for herbal medicine, and plants used as incense or similar ritual components (in small quantities)."

Though not mentioned, it would require a complete change in the title too, because it would no longer be about culinary herbs and spices. For example, it would now include e.g. cinchona bark (for quinine) which is used as herbal medicine. Ipecacuanha, which makes you vomit, is a traditional medicinal herb. I see it is even proposed to include the coca plant, source of cocaine. But such things are clearly not “culinary herbs and spices”.

It would introduce a new range of topics, some of them specialised, most of them completely alien to the culinary arts, some of them controversial, such as recreational drugs. Take herbal medicines alone: Some universities in the West award degrees in herbal medicine. In other European countries, however, none but medical doctors can practise the art. Professional herbaria such as and run to hundreds of pages and include thousands of botanical items. Traditional herbaria, like Nicholas Culpeper’s The English Physician, are another approach. In yet other places fringe practitioners can claim to “heal” you with many a strange concoction. Medical articles on Wikipedia, quite rightly, are subject to stricter rules. What is a herbal medicine can be hugely controversial. In case I've failed to convey the gist of the matter, herbs for cooking and herbs for phytotherapy are utterly different branches of human knowledge.

If someone wants to start a page called “List of medicinal herbs”, they are free to try it, although I can guarantee it will take years off their life. Why should we have to concern ourselves about it here?

Furthermore the new proposed definition, though pleasingly mystical, is vague, confused and unworkable. What, exactly, are “plants used as herbs”, or “similar ritual components”?

3. You say your version is better because it contains more citations. If that were a criterion, both versions would fail miserably because in both cases the vast majority of items are not referenced at all. The objection is pedantic, however. This article is itself a list of (fully referenced) Wikipedia articles. You don't have to repeat the citations here except where it may be controversial. For example, the article List of sovereign states contains hundreds of countries, mostly unreferenced.

4. Why are we having to trouble ourselves about this proposal in the first place? Apparently because an editor was working alone on a parallel project that was rejected for content forking.

But, as was said with becoming modesty, “I do not wish to simply take over a page I have never previously contributed to, and in any case I have neither the knowledge nor the spoons”. Fine. Leave it alone then.

5. I'm not concerned to dispute that improvements could be made e.g. in the mode of presentation, which can be considered separately on the merits.

Ttocserp 10:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 * You are right that my article has a somewhat different scope, which is why I'm arguing that it should be able to be its own thing rather than replacing this article. But at present the title of my article is a redirect to this page, so I can't move my page to mainspace.
 * What I would like to see happen, honestly, is to remove the redirect, and let my article move to mainspace, at which point other editors can improve my article as needed, and we can discuss the merits of merging the two articles vs keeping them as separate articles.
 * My article was initially rejected as a mere fork of this one when it was in a *much* earlier stage, with much less information. But now it's a much more complete article, and I'd like to give it another chance to go "live".
 * I will note that this would be far from the only pair of articles on Wikipedia that are more or less covering the same subject.
 * Part of why I made the page was to illustrate the significant overlap between herbs used as flavoring agents for food, and herbs used as other things (teas, medicines, ritual components). Also, I was interested in highlighting the biology/relatedness (or lack thereof) of different herbs.
 * Also, I just thought of a better way to explain the "ritual component" thing, so I'll go edit the page to explain.
 * and, incidentally, it also contains at least one herb not on this page, at least last I checked (scented geraniums). Tamtrible (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you start your article without knowing about this one? Ttocserp 01:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I started my article because this one couldn't answer the main question I came here to find out. I was interested in seeing how many herbs are close relatives vs off in their own clades.  The flavoring vs medicine vs other things came second, actually.  And the list format of this article didn't lend itself to even trying to answer my question.  Tamtrible (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But there are many many more medicinal herbs than are mentioned in your current table. I suppose that's what's been puzzling me.  If you were to put a goodly proportion of them in your table, it would start to make sense.  Then, it could bear a conceptually simple title (e.g. Table of herbs) and couldn't fairly be accused of content forking.   At present your table is so biassed to culinary items and slight on other herbs (medicinal or otherwise) that it tends to look like mere duplication.  Do that and I think you would have no trouble.
 * But I think you'd have to do a lot of the initial work yourself. Why don't you get an online public domain source, like Culpeper, to get you started? Ttocserp 21:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do have a few non-culinary or not-primarily-culinary herbs, I just... am a lot more familiar with culinary herbs than non-culinary herbs. Tamtrible (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not use this to get you started?
 * | A classic
 * Ttocserp 10:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * also... there is a *lot* of overlap between culinary and medicinal herbs. Eg one of the most scientifically supported medicinal herbs is ginger.
 * I will note that my list has a lot more items that are not just "culinary" than it has ones that are just "culinary". There are something like 15 for which "culinary" is not listed as a purpose, something like 20-30 for which only culinary is listed as the purpose, and the rest (which I'd ballpark as over 100, though I haven't counted) have both culinary and at least one other purpose.  Tamtrible (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * and as far as what you referred me to? Um... I specifically stated as an intention of the page that anything listed *only* as medicinal needs... at least some scientific evidence that it, you know, actually does medicinal things.  a more than 3 century old herbal would maybe give me a long, rather random list of plants to try investigating, but I could probably do just about as well by random-walking through a wikipedia list of cultivated plants or something.  Tamtrible (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The page is live now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices. Feel free to improve it, and/or to use it to improve this page (I have a few culinary herbs y'all missed) Tamtrible (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:List of culinary herbs and spices


text:
Talk:Geoid

Earlier comments
Thanks for adding the link to Physical geodesy! Martin Vermeer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.136.69 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 January 2003 (UTC)

I had in fact for some time been missing some explanation of "Geoid". S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.214 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 January 2003 (UTC)

Wrong character
Hi, I think there's an error in the formula: you write "φ and λ are geocentric latitude and longitude respectively", but nowhere in the formula can I see any φ ...

Laurence Vanhelsuwe — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenceV (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 April 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem is that TeX markup permits simple TeX characters to be displayed as HTML characters, thus in a different font, which here appears to change the character, even though both are phi. Thus I changed $$\phi$$ $$\phi$$ to $$\phi\ $$ $$\phi\ $$ by adding the math text space '\ ' immediately after the math character, which forces it to be rendered as a PNG character, just like those in the formula. — Joe Kress 07:16, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Gender specific pronouns
The earth has no gender, so is it necessary to call it a she ?

I'll change the article over to using gender-neutral terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahpook (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Counting Coefficients
Greetings!

When you count the geopotential coefficients at the end, you get 130,317. You should probably mention what maximum degree (n) you used and why you chose that value. After all, in principle, n is infinite.

Oh, and if you're interested, here's a quick and visual definition from the project I work on (GRACE): http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/gravity_definition.html

Take care! Jennifer Bonin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reythia (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll try to clarify this. After all, there are new models in the works with degree=order=2160 (over 4 million coefficients), good to 1/6 degree. MFago 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

References and Intro
Was it a good idea to split the top into the short intro and a new "description" section? More closely follows other Wikipedia articles, so I made this change. Also, this article could really use more citations. Unfortunately, I haven't quite figured out the "cite" template... MFago 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force
Hi, I can't find the answer to this anywhere!

Does the geoid take into account centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation? If so, would it be incorrect to refer to it as a mathematical figure of the gravity field alone? And if not, would it be incorrect to say that the mean sea level assumes the shape of the geoid?

Or is all of this too miniscule to make any difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.99.123.63 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * There is not actually "a" geoid, but rather many different variations depending on whether or not one accounts for tides, etc. I do believe that it usually does account for rotation. Note that the equation given in the article is not for the geoid itself, but for the (non-rotational part of the) potential. Computing the geoid is rather more involved. I'll see if I can relocate my reference on this (at NIMA or a related site), and perhaps add more detail to the article. Also see Physical geodesy and Geodesy. The reference text the end of Geodesy is excellent and covers most of the details. MFago 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Link added to above reference: No such thing as "The" EGM96 geoid, and tried to clarify a bit. Really needs more detail -- it's a complex subject, and I'm not entirely fluent. MFago 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering about this myself. The reason being that International Atomic Time is based on the rate of ticking of a clock sitting on the geoid. This definition removes any ambiguity due to gravitational time dilation, but i can't work out if it accounts for the dilation due to greater speed of movement of points on the equator compared to those at high latitudes. If the geoid doesn't include a centrifugal term, then it definitely doesn't. If it does, and is thus about equipotential from the point of view of a co-moving observer (as a geoid based on actual local measurements would pretty much have to be), then possibly it does, what with the equivalence principle and all that. Although i'm not at all sure about that - is there any particular reason to think time moves at the same rate at all points on an equipotential surface? No, probably not. And i don't even know what kind of geoid IAT uses. Oh god, this is confusing. I should not have to do general relativity to work out what bloody time it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.106.202 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The article's first sentence now clarifies that the geoid indeed incorporates the Earth's rotation. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Broken Links
I just saw that all of the NGA links are broken. I cannot locate any of this data on the new "enhanced" site -- it appears to be unavailable? MFago 23:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. They simply changed all *.htm to *.html, and their search engine was of no help. MFago 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Geoid Picture
Unfortunately the picture of the Geoid (actually the geoid undulation) that used to be on this page was evidently taken from the GRACE website without proper permission. Anyone have access to another similar graphic that would be useable here? The raw data for the EGM96 geoid (less detailed than GRACE, but still illustrative) is available at: NGA EGM96 data (labeled as "Geoid Height File"). Matlab can easily make a similar plot from this data, but I do not have access to this software. Anyone able to help, or have another idea?MFago 14:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Nowadays, the key data from GRACE can be found on US government websites (NASA.gov, NGA.mil, etc), which are public domain. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible image error
Shouldn't the local plumb lines in the image in the Description section be orthogonal to the geoid? Shinobu (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, belated thanks. The image was corrected in 2009. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sea floor
The geoid seems also to be used, along with satellite data, for estimating the topography of the sea floor; see Exploring the Ocean Basins with Satellite Altimeter Data, especially under "3. Explanation of the Gravity Anomaly". There may be a better home for this, but even if the main information goes elsewhere a 'see also' might be appropriate. (The gravitational anomoly is mentioned technically in Physical geodesy, but without discussion of use.) Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.255.2 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The second diagram shows the geoid as being above the ellipsoid where there is land but below it where there is an ocean. The first picture doesn't show this picture at all. Why this difference?194.241.59.190 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The schematic picture now is in the section labeled "Simplified example", which explains that the reality is more complex because of variations in the Earth's density. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Unclear grammar
In the first paragraph, 2nd sentence "Although the former " it's unclear what it refers to. --maye (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Current version: "Although the 'ground' of the Earth..." —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Erm... help for beginners :)
"If that perfect sphere were then covered in water, the water would not be the same height everywhere. Instead, the water level would be higher or lower depending on the particular strength of gravity in that location." - so does that mean that more gravity pulls the water-level down or does it mean that more gravity collects more water above it pushing the water level up? It may seem obvious to you, but it's not to some of us here :) Clarification would be appreciated :) Malick78 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malick. Could someone who understands this properly state something like "A greater height on the geoid corresponds to a stronger local gravitational field" or vice versa? I've seen online discussions about the map from Goce in which lay-people interpret the map both ways, even after reading this Wikipedia article. BruceMcAdam (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems no one understands this page... ;) Malick78 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not an expert on this, but my guess is that the level of the water joins all points of equal gravitational potential. Thus in areas where gravity is stronger, you have to go up to a greater height to achieve the same gravitational potential as a point where the gravity is weaker. Thus the water would be higher there. Muraho (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I've removed that whole section. There is no direct relationship between the water level and the local strength of gravity. When traveling in a geodesic along the surface, the rate of change in the direction of the force of gravity determines whether the water surface locally follows a concave or convex curvature. When a heavy lump is ahead, the gravity vector moves a bit forward (compared to pointing to the centre of the Earth) and the water surface will curve up. Past the heavy lump, the vector will point a bit backward, and the water surface curves down. --Lambiam 09:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So isn't this sentence wrong? The surface of the geoid is farther away from the center of the Earth where the gravity is weaker, and nearer where it is stronger. It contradicts both my intuition and the illustration. —Tamfang (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Good catch. The article now says, more correctly and more intuitively: "Generally the geoid rises where the Earth's material is locally more dense, exerts greater gravitational force, and pulls more water from the surrounding area." I tried to make the lead section clearer, too. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is this word pronounced? I always assumed (without really thinking about it) that it is pronounced "gee-oh-id". However, on reflection is seems more likely that it is "gee-oyd". To match ellipsoid. Is this correct? Muraho (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to dictionaries it is . --Lambiam 08:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's first sentence now says "geoid ". —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Mathematical formulas
Does the inclusion of mathematical formulas in the section Spherical harmonics representation serve a purpose? Without giving the numerical values of the coefficients, they do not supply any actually useful information. Even if this could somehow be argued to serve some purpose, the right place for such detail would be the EGM96 article. --Lambiam 09:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It's somewhat helpful for technical readers, by conveying the complexity and the resolution of modern geoid calculations. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

New data from Goce satellite
Scientists use a geoid model to illustrate the force of gravity on Earth from data from the Goce satellite. (BBC). Can a knowledgeable editor update this article? Dr.enh (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Belated thanks. The article's GOCE info was updated the day after you posted this. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Rotation of the Earth
As I understand it from [this source] the geoid is an equipotential surface based in the sum if the non-rotating gravitational potential and the centrifugal potential. This is confirmed by this sentence in the lead, '...the geoid is the equipotential surface that would coincide with the mean ocean surface of the Earth if the oceans and atmosphere were in equilibrium, at rest relative to the rotating Earth'. However, we also have this sentence, 'In that idealized situation, other influences such the rotation of the earth, winds due to solar heating, and so on have no effect'. This may suggest to some that the rotation of the Earth is not taken into account in the calculation of the geoid. I suggest that the words, 'such the rotation of the earth', are removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and made the change. The academic source that I added seem clear enough. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

More Rotation of the Earth
A related observation: the first paragraph states: "The geoid, simply stated, is the shape that the surface of the oceans would take under the influence of gravity alone."

Such a surface would be very nearly a sphere. The reason that the geoid is nearly an ellipsoid is that its shape is due to gravity plus the effect of the rotating earth. The geoid entry in Encyclopedia Britanica includes the statement "This potential function describes the combined effects of the gravitational attraction of the Earth’s mass and the centrifugal repulsion caused by the rotation of the Earth about its axis."

The first paragraph of the current wiki article is therefore misleading and confusing because (1) there is no explanation of why the earth would be an ellipsoid under the influence of gravity alone, and (2) a plumb line is always under the influence of the rotating earth and would therefore not be normal to the geoid if the geoid were due to the influence of gravity alone. I would suggest that this paragraph be changed to be more accurate. "The geoid, simply stated, is the shape that the surface of the oceans would take under the combined influence of gravity and the earth's rotational velocity." Rocket Laser Man (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed this but decided that gravity could be interpreted to include the contribution of centrifugal force. How about we have, "The geoid, simply stated, is the shape that the surface of the oceans would take under the combined influence of gravity and centrifugal force due the earth's rotation."?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction at Latitude
At Talk:Latitude I have noted a contradiction with this article. I suggest that any discussion is carried out on that talk page. JonH (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Good catch. I clarified this article to say that plumb lines are perpendicular to the geoid "at sea level". —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 * You rightly pointed out that my "sea level" edits weren't clear enough. Nevertheless, the "parallel" & "perpendicular" claims aren't generally accurate, as described at Latitude. Can you think of a better way to clarify the text here at Geoid? —173.56.111.206 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn’t the deviation of a plumb-bob’s vertical from normal to the geoid due to the fact that the plumb-bob isn’t normally on the geoid, but (typically) somewhere above it? Because this article’s description is always about conditions on the geoid, I’m not sure there needs to be any more complication to the text. It is not my understanding that the parallel and perpendicular comments are incorrect, albeit, in general, they are hypothetical rather than practical. But I’m at the limits of my knowledge here. Strebe (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even at sea level, tides are also a source of deviation from those theoretical geoid properties. See if my 2nd attempt to clarify the text is better? —173.56.111.206 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are the tidal deviations non-negligible? My understanding is that they are not normally accounted for in surveying, the variation being inconsequential to to most activities. For example, they are not considered when measuring plumb-line deflection, which is purely the the difference between astronomical and geodetic measurements without averaging over time. I think your edits are fine. Strebe (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Plumb deviations caused by mountains & tides could be noticeable on land & sea, respectively. The latter shouldn't matter for surveying, but to be safe I added it to the paragraphs about ship travel. When the tide pours in & out of the Bay of Fundy, for example, I suspect there's a measurable tilt of the horizon. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The work of Vaníček
I notice that a 'partisan' tag has been added to the section on the work of Vaníček. Vaníček's work is reported in what, by most standards, would be considered reliable sources and thus should be included here.

Is there some controversy about his work? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 * This article is supposed to be about the geoid, ideally with no undue focus on any particular author who has published research about it. I suggest removing that section if it cannot be enlarged to encompass a worldwide view. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Article.
My overall impression is that this is a very weak article that requires a lot of revision. For example, in the 'Description' section it states-- If the ocean surface were isopycnic (of constant density). --It is an elementary mistake to describe a two-dimensional surface as having a density. Gravity measurements are affected by the totality of rock and water densities encountered by extrapolating a plumb line from the point of measurement. Sea-water density differences are relatively trivial compared with lateral differences in rock density, which vary rapidly on a scale much smaller than the thickness of the Earth's crust. It is quite ludicrous to even mention the possibility of the geoid occupying hypothetical narrow canals cross-cutting the continents, as gravity is affected by the totality of vectors of mass both above and below the point of measurement. As the centre of gravity of the Earth - Moon system lies some distance below the surface of the Earth, satellite gravity measurements have to be constantly updated to take account of the phases of the moon and its distance from the Earth, precession etc. It is also very unlikely that the isostatic compensation depth is much more than 20 - 30 km deep. None of these caveats is addressed in the article. The entire article should be withdrawn until someone can contribute a closer description of reality. Meanwhile it would be best to describe the geoid as a surface that is defined by gravity departure from a defined ellipsoid that has an average Earth gravity field throughout and forget about the ups and downs of the oceanic surfaces until some contributor has a basic understanding of what's going on. Geologician (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I want to add another couple of criticisms: this article usefully discusses what a real observer will experience but then totally IGNORES tidal influences! It should be obvious that you can't conflate an ideal (hypothetical) with a real (measurable) observer. It does this in a number of places. It is, in my view, a fundamental blunder to assume as the starting point for discussions that the Earth is some nebulous undefined ideal mass. I also don't think the editors of this section have put enough thought into what they are saying. An example is the following:"...the geoid is the equipotential surface that would coincide with the mean ocean surface of Earth if the oceans and atmosphere were in equilibrium, at rest relative to the rotating Earth..." As I already pointed out, this ignores the tides from the Sun and Moon (and Venus and...). But more to the point, it assumes the false idea that the Earth's rotation is that of a rigid sphere. It is not. The term "equilibrium" is also a problem here. I don't know what it means - it certainly doesn't mean thermal equilibrium - gasses (or more broadly compressible fluids) can't be both in a gravitational gradient and at thermal equilibrium.174.130.19.69 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't find these critiques useful. Using much hyperbole, Geologician pontificates about things "he" could have simply added to or subtracted from the article himself, if they were actually problems, and then finishes by ludicrously declaring the entire article should be withdrawn. Not helpful, particularly to people looking for basic information about the geoid, of which much is to be found in the article. As for both Geologician's and 174.130.19.69's dismissals on the grounds that other bodies' gravity also affects the geoid, the article already disclaims other influences explicitly. Hence the criticism is worse than a red herring; it is just wrong, and negligently so. Also wrong is the sneering lambasting of the article's use of 'isopycnic'. Contrary to Geologician's claim, the term isopycnic refers specifically to surfaces. True, a mathematical surface has no density. False, real surfaces have a density, when properly defined to. Nor is there any assumption that the earth's rotation is that of a rigid sphere. And so on. If these editors would like to start over, discussing one complaint at a time, we might be able to make some progress if there are really any problems to address. Strebe (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The word "isopycnic" wasn't necessary or helpful, so I removed it from the article – and I described the continental canals as an approximation. The remaining criticisms don't seem relevant to the current version of the article. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geoid. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113002553/http://www.fugro-gravmag.com/resources/Technical%20Papers/Li_Goetze_Geophysics_2001.pdf to http://www.fugro-gravmag.com/resources/Technical%20Papers/Li_Goetze_Geophysics_2001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001095040/http://www.infra.kth.se/geo/geollab.htm to http://www.infra.kth.se/geo/geollab.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140405091253/http://www.surveying.org/home.htm to http://www.surveying.org/home.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoid. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084208/http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/gravity_definition.html to http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/gravity_definition.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084208/http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/gravity_definition.html to http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/gravity_definition.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

spirit leveling from a tidal measurement station
The article says "Conversely, height determined by spirit leveling from a tidal measurement station, as in traditional land surveying, is always geoidal height". Is this accurate?

You'd get height based on local mean sea level at the measurement station, but: (1) it doesn't adjust for local mean sea level differences from the geoid and (2) as you get farther from that measuring point you're getting less accurate as the density of the earth changes. I think the sentence is trying to contrast with ellipsoid references, but it's confusing when trying to understand what the geoid is and how it's measured. In fact, this whole paragraph about ships observing sea level is unclear IMHO.

This article could also benefit from a discussion of gravity surveys and how the geoid is measured.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.152 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Belated thanks. The GPS paragraph now refers to "orthometric height" instead of "geoidal height". —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geoid


text:
Sunda Strait

The Sunda Strait (Selat Sunda) is the strait between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. It connects the Java Sea with the Indian Ocean.

Etymology
The strait takes its name from the Sunda Kingdom, which ruled the western portion of Java (an area covering the present day West Java, Jakarta, Banten, and some of western Central Java) from 669 to around 1579.

The name also alludes to the Sundanese people native to West Java and Banten.

Geography
Extending in a roughly southwest/northeast orientation, with a minimum width of 24 km at its northeastern end between Cape Tua on Sumatra and Cape Pujat on Java, the strait is part of the Java Sea. It is essentially triangular in shape, with two large bays on its northern side. It is also very broad and deep at its southwestern end, but as it narrows to the northeast it becomes much shallower, with a minimum depth of only 20 m in parts of its northeastern end.

The strait is notoriously difficult to navigate because of this shallowness, very strong tidal currents, sandbanks, and man-made obstructions such as oil platforms off the Java coast.

For centuries, the strait was an important shipping route, especially during the period when the Dutch East India Company used it as the gateway to the Spice Islands of Indonesia (1602–1799). However, its narrowness, shallowness, and lack of accurate charting make it unsuitable for many modern, large ships, most of which use the Strait of Malacca instead.

The strait is dotted with a number of islands, many of which are volcanic in origin. They include: Sangiang (Thwart-the-Way), Sebesi, Sebuku, and Panaitan (Prince's). The 1883 eruption of Krakatau, one of these islands, had a profound effect on the area, both short and long term. Tsunamis and pyroclastic flows which floated on clouds of steam killed tens of thousands. Out of 3,000 people on nearby Sebesi at the time, not one survived. Some land was never resettled and became Ujung Kulon National Park.

The Krakatoa eruption drastically altered the topography of the strait, with as much as 18–21 km3 of ignimbrite being deposited over an area of 1.1 million km2 around the volcano. However, the population has recovered and much of the coastline is now very densely populated. Aside from Krakatoa's sole remaining peak, Rakata, the Krakatoa Archipelago consists of the islands of Lang (Panjang or Rakata Kecil), Verlaten (Sertung), and most recently, Anak Krakatau, which emerged in 1927 from the original Krakatoa's shattered remains.

Battle of Sunda Strait
On March 1, 1942, the Battle of Sunda Strait—part of the larger Battle of the Java Sea—took place when the Allied cruisers HMAS Perth and USS Houston encountered a Japanese amphibious landing force near Bantam, commanded by Rear Admiral Kenzaburo Hara. That force included a light cruiser and eleven destroyers, four heavy cruisers and a light aircraft carrier. The two Allied cruisers were sunk, while a Japanese minesweeper and a transport vessel were sunk by friendly fire.

Planned bridge
In the 1960s proposals were made for a bridge across the Sunda Strait, and in the 1990s further suggestions arose. A new plan was announced in October 2007. It would use the islands of Ular, Sangiang and Prajurit to create a four-part suspension bridge reaching 70 m above sea level. This bridge would have a maximum span of 3 kilometers, around 50% longer than the current record holder, the 1915 Çanakkale Bridge. Construction was projected to begin in 2014 if funding of at least US$10 billion could be secured.

An accord was signed in April 2012 with China Railway Construction Corporation for an $11 billion road and double track rail bridge. However, in November 2014 the incoming government of President Joko Widodo shelved plans to build the bridge.

Islands in the strait

 * Calmeyer
 * Krakatau Archipelago
 * Anak Krakatau
 * Krakatau, mostly destroyed volcanic island
 * Danan (volcano), destroyed volcanic cone on Krakatau
 * Perboewatan, destroyed volcanic cone on Krakatau
 * Rakata, partially destroyed volcanic cone and remnant of original island
 * Poolsche Hoed, destroyed in 1883 eruption of Krakatoa
 * Panjang, or Rakata Ketjil (Lang)
 * Sertung (Verlaten)
 * Legundi
 * Panaitan (Prince's Island)
 * Peucang
 * Handeuleum
 * Sangiang (Thwart-the-way)
 * Sebesi
 * Sebuku
 * Steers (island)
 * Tabuan

Bays

 * Lampung Bay, Sumatra
 * Semangka Bay, Sumatra

title: Sunda Strait