This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
The article says "British sailors called the plant cole or colewort in the early 19th century.[1]". The source given says "COLE [from the German kohl]. Colewort or sea-kale; a plant in its wild state peculiar to the sea-coast." However, the link colewort redirects to Brassica oleracea, and the description in the source is equally true of wild Brassica oleracea, wild cabbage or sea cabbage, and the name is more plausibly applied to this species. I don't think there is sufficient evidence that Crambe maritima was called "cole" or "colewort". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, weak attestation; added as it was the best reference I could find for vernacular use of this (already added by someone) name for this species. The word "colewort" is extremely generic for Brassicaceae in general in English, so even if some sailor ever called the plant as such, it is a relatively useless factoid.
Hmmm. Agonistic regarding the 2014 newspaper source you added claiming Victorian popularity, want to see texts from that time -cookbooks, legislation, marketing, farming, gardening or botanical accounts. The 2004 book which claimed it was popular in the 18th century was clearly taking Curtis and Maher as base and fantasising a bit on that. Just because it showed up on the menu of a royal banquet doesn't mean it was "popular". Peacocks showed up much more often in cookbooks or whatnot, and no one says these were a popular dish.
I was also interested in looking further back in time; the northern English William Turner: (who calls it brassica maritima or Dover cole) and certain Flemish appear to be the first to write about this plant. I also wanted to add some more chorology: regarding NL (officially seen as "native" now, but seems to have first appeared in the 1920s, specifically using the massive concrete sea dikes as habitat), the Israeli/Croatia distribution is strange (quite likely misidentified), and the disjunct distribution is odd. Also interesting if the distributions in Spain are sympatric or not. Leo Breman (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like this: This source claims the vegetable was popular in the 18th century after which its use declined, but appears wrong about a number of other things. If the newspaper source you added is correct about it being popular in the Victorian era, then these writers are wrong about this too, and there is nothing that can be referenced to them.[1]
Okay, I eat my hat, the plant is indeed common in Victorian cookbooks. Mrs. Beeton (1861): "Although it is now in very general use, it did not come into repute till 1794. It is easily cultivated, and is esteemed as one of the most valuable esculents indigenous to Britain." Leo Breman (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting exchange of ideas and research. Negative evidence is difficult or impossible to source, so can't be used in the article, but if I look through my gardening books that cover vegetables in sufficient detail to have included sea kale, they support the view that it fell out of favour around the 1950s or 1960s: earlier books cover it as if it were a major vegetable, later ones omit it or have limited treatment. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we'd need a source which specifically says it fell out of favour where and when, presence or not in gardening books isn't enough for an encyclopedia (although Polish Wikipedia appears to be doing it), but for me privately your conclusions seem acceptable. In the case of Helen Sanderson and Jane M. Renfrew, their assertion of popularity in the 18th century can be disproven by Maher, who begins his 1805 tract with an explanation that he is introducing a new and rare vegetable to his audience, and gives a convincing history of the plant in Britain. Their statement that it fell out of favour after the 18th century can be disproven by Mrs. Beeton. Cheers! Leo Breman (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Sanderson, Helen; Renfrew, Jane M. (2005). Prance, Ghillean; Nesbitt, Mark (eds.). The Cultural History of Plants. Routledge. p. 127. ISBN0415927463.
