Talk:Spice

Salt

Is salt really considered a spice? If not, the reference to it could be deleted from this article. -- Heron

It's certainly a flavoring, and is used in the same manner as (other?) spices. I can buy it in the spice section in my grocery store, and keep it in my spice rack (or rather in the spice shelf in my cabinet, I haven't yet "made it" enough to have anything so luxurious as a whole rack just for spices). Just because it's mineral instead of vegetable, we oughtn't to discriminate against it. --Brion VIBBER

Useless fact: Salt is the only spice that gives no smell.....it's a spice.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The present definition of spice still excludes salt. Is there any scientific basis for this? If not, it should be adapted to include salt.Kipala (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Popular misconception

Whenever I read "popular misconception" my antennae go up. In part because in fact the "misconception" may be correct, but especially in Wikipedia, because it signals someone is perhaps overeager to be there with the most authoritative understanding. I feel that's what's going on with the 80 word explanation in this relatively short article about how chefs in the Middle Ages used spice to one degree or another. What's particularly unappealing is what in Wikipedia would possibly qualify as Original Research on the part of the reference. Did medieval cooks use spices to "cover" less pleasant tastes? (Or rather, emphasize predictable ones that everyone liked?) Surely. Why would they be any different than cooks today? Was this generally NOT a problem for the rich or for special occasions? Well, obviously. Too much effort here is being spent refuting, essentially, the notion that rich people had to eat bad or rotting food. I'm scaling the statement back, accordingly. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. A lifetime studying medieval food has shown me no evidence whatever that spices were used to cover up bad or rotten tastes. No idea at all where the idea originates. Glynhughes (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the idea originates from a misunderstanding. Spices were prized especially because they could cover up the somewhat unpleasant taste of meat, etc that had been salted for preservation--so, it wasn't in any way *rotten*, just kind of...nastily bland, afaik. Tamtrible (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ham, bacon, and corned beef are "nastily bland"? What? At any rate, there's plenty of good evidence that people who could afford spices had no trouble buying fresh meat. The spices and rotten meat claim was literally made up by JC Drummond in the 1930s [1] PepperBeast (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going off of something that is, admittedly, half-remembered. So I freely admit I could either be misremembering it, or have misunderstood it. But afaik corned beef *would* be fairly bland without the spices it is generally cooked with. And, at least as they are currently made, ham and bacon aren't salted or smoked enough for *long term* storage without refrigeration. And also, afaik, animals that were going to be slaughtered were mostly slaughtered at the end of fall, so farmers didn't have to feed them through the (often lean) winters. So, at least in late winter, fresh meat mostly wasn't on the menu for *anyone* unless you went hunting yourself (or had someone to go hunting for you). And the "only preserved versions are available" thing was doubly true for things *besides* meat--before refrigeration and relatively rapid long-distance travel, *no one* was getting fresh peaches or whatever in the middle of winter. Tamtrible (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Corned beef is not bland. Ham and bacon do not magically become bland because they are salted or smoked more thoroughly. Spices were literally worth their weight in gold. People wealthy enough to afford spices could afford winter feed for livestock; people who couldn't afford to overwinter stock couldn't afford spices, either. PepperBeast (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please help...

I started a new article, Table of plants used as herbs or spices, but I have both finite time and a finite knowledge base (most of the entries I have added so far were basically me going "So, I know X is an herb or spice, what species does the wikipedia page say it is?"). It is under threat of deletion. Please add to it... Tamtrible (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It got deleted, but I put a draft version (I think) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamtrible/Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices ; please help me get it ready for prime time?... Tamtrible (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted because it wasn't "ready for prime time". It was deleted because it was substantially the same as List of herbs and spices. Improving that article might be a better idea. PepperBeast (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It had a different focus than that list, and included things that aren't on that list, so, no, it's not substantially the same. There is a draft version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices , please improve it if you can. Tamtrible (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamtrible, talk pages are NOT FORUMS and you are spamming your desperate pleas across more and more plant-related pages. Please stop or this will become an administrative matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Allspice

I suggest adding Allspice. 49.199.210.218 (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

On whether to remove research tab content

The tab on research doesn’t add much information and much more notable information including other researches on spices could be in its place, I think it should be removed, it might also be wp:PROMO Bobisland (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Subject on health benefits of spices

i think my edit should stay up as they reflect the source and is common scientific knowledge, stating spices have no known health benefits contradicts the source Bobisland (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should remove the whole thing. The idea that spices have health benefits is not common knowledge. The source quoted is a review of studies aimed at determining whether biomarkers for the consumption of certain spices even exist. It does not claim that spices have health benefits. PepperBeast (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with PepperBeast. There is not WP:MEDRS-level support for the proposition that there are specific health benefits. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Aren't some spices nutritionally beneficial?

I think, garlic and many seeds are quite nutrient-rich in terma of minerals, vitamins, fats and proteins. Aren't they? Reciprocist (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Salt again

Salt is a spice 2001:14BB:696:5E30:1065:593B:6602:EA8E (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that? Seasoning, yes. Spice? I doubt it. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"at the table"

Kent Dominic insists that "at the table", in the context of "e.g. peppercorns ground at the table", is "ambiguous", using words in an edit summary to the effect of "It could be a counter, or a tray, or a picnic blanket..." The text in question is explicitly given as an example, not to be considered exhaustive. In an earlier edit comment, he makes the specious claim that it "excludes" other examples. I maintain that it is common usage for things done to a dish (e.g. cooking, finishing, seasoning, garnishing, etc.) at the table instead of in the kitchen, or other prep area. This simple phrase is self-explanatory, needing no further elaboration.

Of course, Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself, but I offer that as evidence that this usage is tolerated, or even favored, by enough WP editors that it is not unclear, nor an error. I will now go restore the common usage. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I said its "SUP contains needless ambiguity" by excluding things other than a table, whereby "table" isn't a metonym and fails as a hypernym. Moreover, no one made a claim, specious or otherwise, that "table" is an example. Only "peppercorns" is an example. The fact that it's gratuitious is harmless. The example's "at the table" qualification (defined by Webster's as "sitting at a table and eating a meal") is what's equivocal. Strike 3, now chill and let reasoned substance prevail over self-proclaimed idiomatic style, misplaced pride of authorship, or whatever.

• 19:28, 30 September 2023‎ Just plain Bill talk contribs‎ 31,445 bytes −6‎ REVERTED 1 edit by Kent Dominic (talk)
• 13:14, 1 October 2023‎ Just plain Bill talk contribs‎ 31,441 bytes −6‎ →‎top: One gratuitous example need not cover all possibilities exhaustively. Common usage sufices here. Tag: REVERTED
• 17:36, 1 October 2023‎ Just plain Bill talk contribs‎ 31,441 bytes −6‎ REVERTED 1 edit by Kent Dominic (talk): See talk lage, and don't threaten 3RR when the page history doesn't justify it

Three reversions in 22 hours. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Only just now noticed the "Some WP articles containing examples of this usage" red herring. What a colossal waste of energy. Listen: There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the "at the table" phrase. It's contextually problematic in a ham-handed characterization implied as the sole manner in which peppercorns are ground after a dish has been presented for consumption. Indeed, even wording like "... after a dish has been presented for consumption (e.g., such as peppercorns ground e.g., at the table)" passes muster for even the most intransigent of lexically unevolved troglodytes. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)