Talk:Weed

Steven dose a lot of this green source with bob Marlyn.

" ... used to describe native or nonnative plants that grow and reproduce aggressively."

Well, "native and non-native" describes all possibilities, so how about removing it:

" ... used to describe plants that grow and reproduce aggressively."

which provides no less information. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This is reasonable of course, though the wording was a quote from a source. However, in context the intended meaning clearly was something like "whether indigenous or not". That still is redundant in terms of your objection, if taken literally, but currently there is so much concern about invasive species that it might be seen as reasonable and helpful to the reader, to make the point explicit. If you felt like doing a bit of rewording without doing violence to sense or readability, I for one certainly would not complain. JonRichfield (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"Examples" Section needs citations, balance

It's not enough simply to say "plant X is a weed," with no citations. Instead, we need citations that find common, mainstream support to label something a "weed". Even then, such a label may be disputable in some cases (i.e., clover). Ryoung122 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That bit had bothered me. I had edited the caption independently, but not changed the list. Given how many thousands of weeds there are among invasive species alone, I am uncertain what that list is for at all. We cannot seriously accommodate many species in this article, and if we put in only a few, we should justify their presence with clear reasons for mentioning them as being of special interest. I once saw a list of proposals for the "hundred worst weeds", and maybe I can remember to look for it again, but even then I am only inclined to list those for which there are are articles to link to. I'll have a look if I remember, but don't hold your breath. JonRichfield (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Humans as weeds

In 1999 ABC-TV (in the USA) had a miniseries called Brave New World (TV series). One of its episodes was about weeds, and in this case, it generalized weeds to all life, not just plants, and detailed weeds ability to quickly adapt, live in multiple environments, and survive mass extinctions. It then ends with the conclusions that humans are a weed, and They Might Be Giants even had a song for it, called King Weed. Alas, I'm failing to find reliable source, largely to the series' horribly unoriginal name. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is something to this, the significance of the concept of "weeds" as a metaphor that can apply to human beings in society, as well as to many other things. There could be a section of the article on symbolism and use in popular culture. We have the phrase "in the weeds" meaning in the details of things, often with some stress implied. We have the metaphor of weeds in terms of counter-insurgency actions by systemic control entities who define resistance as undesirables and therefore work to eliminate them. There is fertile ground in this topic. SageRad (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2013

Second sentence in the article on Weed needs changing:

"The term weed is used in a variety of senses, generally centering around a plant that is not desired within a certain context." It is impossible for anything, whether a physical object or an idea to CENTER AROUND something. CENTER indicates the center and you cannot center around a center. 206.177.43.74 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While your logic is sound, the phrase "center around" is nonetheless in common usage.^{1 2} Still, the lead paragraph was a terrible mess. I've cleaned it up somewhat, in the process removing the phrase that bothered you, but eventually it should be rewritten to properly summarize the body of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Weed - needs redefinition?

My understanding of a weed is that it is a plant undesirable to livestock. However, there are plenty of other of weeds that sustain a diversity of life. For example, the Monarch Butterfly is highly dependent on the presence of Milkweed. Or "Butterfly Weed", or many other flowering plants that livestock don't like to eat. As the world applies much more industrial farming techniques, the lack of biodiversity can be harmful to many other species. I could argue that honeybee collapse may be related to such lack of biodiversity. I'd like to suggest a review of the definition of a "weed". I do grant that invasive species can have radical changes to a local environment - so not all weeds should be considered "good" either. I simply state that there is a POV involved with every species. --71.10.145.225 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentence is fairly strong. A weed is any plant that humans have decided is not desired in the place where it is growing. This applies not just for purposes of livestock grazing (e.g., thistle in the hay), but for any reason that matters to humans. For example, your average golfer would complain about the wrong kinds of plant on the golf greens. In that instance, it's not because livestock are involved—it's because people have aesthetic notions and golf-ball-rolling performance requirements in their heads (some worth their water footprint, many not). Same with people who consider dandelions in their lawn to be weeds—no livestock involved, but a weed because someone says it is. Some of us love them for the salad-making possibilities; others with more tenuous mental grip on reality will spray poison to get rid of them. Which is why you are totally correct that "there is a POV involved with every species". — ¾-10 02:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Role in mass extinctions section

The "Role in mass extinctions" section seems too absolute to me. The statement that "only weedy species survive" is clearly too strongly put. It should rather say that weedy species will have an advantage, being generalized for survival outside of niche environments. SageRad (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sections reorganized

I reorganized the sections just a bit. I removed some text on weed control from the short-list of weeds, and put it into its own section. Weed control is a huge topic, and i do not want to re-write the Weed control entry, but only to provide a very brief introduction to the concepts and to promote the link for the Weed control article, where that should be covered. I also made sure that this article does not include an assumption that chemical weed control will be used, but instead says "If chemical control is chosen..." to emphasize that this is a choice and not a mandatory means of weed control. It must be maintained as one of many means of weed control, to avoid bias. SageRad (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A ridiculous wiki

This is a ridiculous wiki, just like the word "weed". Every flower and plant is equal, some are just more efficient at utilizing soil nutrients & propagating than others. They are anything but "bad plants", they're super plants. It's quite annoying when one is cultivating a particular plant, and to have neighbours etc dismiss that particular plant as "just a weed". The word "weed" needs to be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.203.79 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "weed" is a real word and a real concept in human culture, and it has definitions and philosophical significance, and it's a technical term in agronomy, etc.... It's a real article. I understand that the definition of a "weed" is relative according to the observer's beliefs and values, but that is a beautiful part of the concept in my opinion. Please help to refine and make this article better, but it's not going away. SageRad (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Etymology reveals

In common parleance weed refers to unwanted, unvalued plants, but originally it seems obvious that it had another connotation as it is attested that in Old English they had a word uueod, perhaps rather in the sense of unweed. In modern Norwegian weed is translated as 'ugrass', litteraly 'ungrass'/'unweed'. The etymology of weod is uncertain. A possible relation may be simply Old English 'wið' meaning 'against', as a concept of remedy. (See etymology of 'with'). The old Norse here refered to also means 'woods' and 'fuel'. --Xact (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060910062836/http://plantecology.dbs.umt.edu/Full%20text%20papers%20and%20abstracts/2004%20papers/Callaway&Ridenour2004NOVEL.pdf to http://plantecology.dbs.umt.edu/Full%20text%20papers%20and%20abstracts/2004%20papers/Callaway&Ridenour2004NOVEL.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

Include the weed definition "A plant that causes economic losses or ecological damage, creates health problems for humans or animals, or is undesirable where it is growing." with a reference to the Weed Science Society of America wssa.net Jdb7320 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It looks like you are autoconfirmed and can do it yourself. Furthermore, "WSSA" may be deemed failing WP:GNG at the moment. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request, 30 July 2016

I suggest removing the "In other media" section as it contains only one example, and contributes nothing to understanding of the subject. There are obviously innumerable examples that could be given of weeds in media, but there would be little point in trying to list them. 2.24.119.75 (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem with photograph of cattle dead and dying because of a "weed"

If one grazes cattle in the outback on native plants, and the cattle are tempted to eat poisonous plants, is it appropriate to call the plant which poisons them a weed? The plants were there long before the cattle... Many Australian native plants gave sheep, cattle or horses "the staggers" and books such as "Plants of the Kimberley region of Western Australia" / R.J. Petheram and B. Kok (2003), assess plants for their usefulness as fodder, fencing, fire, proof against termites, and also for their quality of being poisonous to European livestock. A large number of the native plants described in the book are (under some conditions) highly poisonous to introduced animals. And I suspect that this photo represents just such a poisoning incident. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A weed is any plant that is present in a location where it is not desired by the person speaking. If you are using an area for livestock grazing, any poisonous plant is going to be unwanted regardless of whether it is native or introduced. Thus, such poisonous plants are weeds. --Khajidha (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

True, indeed. But given that they were killed "overnight" I suspect this is a photo from a cattle drive where the stockmen overlanding the cattle made an error in their choice of overnight resting place, rather than cattle dying on land already taken up for pastoral purposes.... MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

In the introduction, please link "volunteer" to Volunteer (botany). 2601:5C6:8080:100:8044:54D9:4E50:645D (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Vegetable pests" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vegetable pests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 27#Vegetable pests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Define weed

Define weed 2409:4066:E88:DA53:0:0:8CCB:4C0A (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The article already does this. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The concept of a human?

"This introduces the concept of human and their goal" -- What a needlessly pompous way of saying that the identification of weeds is subjective. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LakeSturgeonOfOntario (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LakeSturgeonOfOntario (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Cannabis disambiguation?

Currently, there's a hatnote pointing to Cannabis (drug), even though the hatnote talks about the Cannabis plant. Should the hatnote be changed? I'd say it's probably best to include both links in the hatnote. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see your point, but before I change it I would like to hear from other editors/users if it would make the hatnote too crowded or confusing. I'm inclined to think that most readers would be looking for the article about the drug rather than the plant. As an alternative, what do you think of rewording to: "For the psychoactive drug commonly called "weed", see..."? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)