Talk:Smoothie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Not updated but a question - If it contains yoghurt, how can it not contain cow milk? Are they using goat, sheep, horse, camel or donkey milk yoghurt? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.220.237.198 (talk) 04:55, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Updated

Removed link to http://www.waycoolsmoothies.com/, same as below, per the wikispam guidelines it is a public relations piece that does not add encyclopedic content.

Removed external links to Smoothie King/ Georgia site, per the wikispam guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam , these are "public relations pieces" and do not add encyclopedic value not provided in the article itself.

Removed link by Jeanpignon. Please read the guidlines on Spam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam and External Links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

The entry was reverted back to "01:51, 5 March 2007" as this has a proper description, photo, and disambiguation. Please use the talk page to discuss any further changes or major modifications. It doesn't appear the new content was valid per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Msedlacek 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Msedlacek, probably good you reverted that so fast - much of it did not belong in an encyclopedic article (and it looks as if it's copied from somewhere?) -still, some could have been used?
Could you next time describe your revert in the "Edit summary" and only additionally on the discussion page? It is easier to find the revert then and more importantly, the revert becomes apparent from the history page alone. 199.74.98.146 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'd like to add a picture too, but I'm not real clear on the free-use thing. Can someone explain? or just add a picture that is ok to use? thanks.

If you take the picture yourself, it's free use for sure. - Mustafaa 02:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~

[edit] Source?

A banana is like salt and pepper in a smoothie. Use it sparingly as it can over power a smoothie. My book, Smoothies! The Original Smoothie Book: Recipes From the Pros, ISBN 1-158291-010-3, was the first attempt to define smoothies from a historical perspective and pull the definition into the future from the perspective of the juice and smoothie industry, i.e. companies like: Jamba Juice, Juice It Up!, Juice Stop, Planet Smoothie, Robeks, and Smoothie King. When the book was published in late 1999, there were 5 smoothie books on the market; now there are over 85 - no wonder there is so much confusion about smoothies as everyone who ever published a cook book is now an expert on smoothies - Dan Titus, March 7, 2007

"a banana must be included in the recipe in order for it to be considered a proper smoothie." By whom? This doesn't agree with any definition of a smoothie that I've encountered. Ziggurat 06:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agrree, there needs to be a source for a lot of the content of this article, particularly where claims of authenticity are made in favour of particular ingredients. Does a 'smoothie' have to be vegan? Does a smoothie *have* to exclude dairy products? Since when does a smoothie have to include a banana? Phil webster 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this definition is a total shock to me. When I went to college in Northern California in the 1980s, what is listed here as a "smoothie" would have been called a "fruit shake" (fruit, ice, juices, no dairy). A "smoothie" included (yuk, why I avoided them) raw or pasteurized eggs and often yogurt in addition to fruit: rarely, a "yogurt smoothie" had yogurt only + fruit, ice. A "milk shake" had milk or ice cream, which separated it from a "fruit shake" (the 'smoothie' defined here) which was non dairy. - Ferdblivid, 3 June 2006

Barry Popik here. My "smoothie" work had been in the American Dialect Society listserv archives, but I finally did an entry on it. The person that you mention did not coin the term "smoothie."--BP, June 28, 2006. http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/smoothie_smoothee_smoothy/

Thanks for the info, Barry Popik. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal misquoted him? --markml, July 16, 2006.

I agree pretty much with what is mentioned on the page. I think any product that contains liquid dairy should no longer be considered a smoothie, i.e. Sonic's new peach "smoothie". Therefore, I would not limit it to the vegan category, for I would allow milk powder, and a whole host of other ingredients. There is a real consistency issue, of course: when you start dealing with refrigerated yogurt, you're into an entirely different category. Same with ice cream--but not sorbet. Since the smoothie is ice and fruit plus powder additives or nuts, etc., a sorbet is ostensibly that: ice and fruit. But, entirely subjectively, yogurt in a smoothie is disgusting--and there should be another name for this concoction so people know how to avoid it.-Kmaguir1 08:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia describes, not prescribes. The word is used that way. We can't invent a new one. Rmhermen 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We need sources for these statements and opinions, in my part of the US, smoothies nearly always contain yogurt; clearly this is not true everywhere. It seems people are defining "smoothie" based on what they are used to, rather than any authoritative source. As it stands now, this entire entry is worthlesss as an encyclopedic source.

[edit] Green smoothies

There is a kind of smoothie that is fiercely debated in natural hygeinist circles known as the "green smoothie".

What sets this drink apart is that it potentially solves a major health issue for those who endorse the basic recipe. The issue is: "How do I get more greens in my diet?" The basic recipe is: as many greens as you wish blended with as much fruit or juice as necessary to make the drink palatable and blender-friendly.

Those who enjoy the green smoothie are quick to point out that they are able to consume massive quantities of greens, even kale and chard, raw, despite the fact that these vegetables can be challenging to work with in the kitchen under normal circumstances. Given the fact that they normally require lengthy cooking and a lot of chewing to get down, as well as the fact that dressings and sauces may compromise the dictates of a restricted diet, the green smoothie is considered a godsend for those trying to establish a more natural, rawfood diet, resembling that of the larger primates.

A large faction of natural hygeinists argue that mixing fruits and greens is poor food combining, which means that the food is poorly digested and therefore not only wasted, but potentially creating digestive imbalances.

As some of these health crusaders advocate diets far from mainstream, such as the "mono-diet" (eating only one type of food at a time), the green smoothie may maintain its position as a realistic "transitional" diet for all those trying to find a diet which is both simple and quick to prepare. But you will need a powerful blender.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "And they've reached the UK too" is not a good title for a section

I cant change it myself because i cant think of what to change it to. Maybe it should be removed altogther. ROSSYMILES TALK 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-promotion

Neil Dockar is listed by whois as the owner of usmoothie.com. User NeilDockar inserted an irrelevant self-promoting sentence referring to usmoothie.com on 9 November. I deleted this.


Changes were reverted back to the "01:51, 5 March 2007" version as we need discussion as to why this major overhaul is needed. The current edition has a photo as well as a definition and proper disambiguation. Please use the bulletin board to discuss changes.

The article was reverted to the "01:51, 5 March 2007" as this entry contains a valid definition, photo, and disambiguation. Please use the discussion to talk about any proposed changes and why they are need. Msedlacek 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Smoothies are very yummy.

[edit] Citing sources

See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links. When using embedded html links a "full citation is also required in the References section." Hyacinth 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong american bias without reason

I've noticed this article has a very strong bias towards America. If smoothies are mainly consumed in the US, provide a citation to say so.

I also removed "but arguably violates the very definition of a smoothie" in regards to adding yoghurt or honey. Aguably according to who? A non-american interpretation of a smoothie does not make it "wrong". --Mouse Nightshirt 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


The American bias is true in the part about brands and how much they cost, the brands mean nothing to me (coming from the UK) and the price in dollars isn't useful to me either.

The brands part probably needs breaking out into it's own section, to show where they are marketed... simply adding european brands won't make sence here... the other alternative would be to just not mention them. 84.9.113.186 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed there is a page for Innocent_Drinks which should be linked from here... funny that page seems to have more activity than this, and their just one smoothie brand. 84.9.113.186 06:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nonsense

Created smoothies in the cretaceous? did so because he had aids and herpes? what? this page has been vandalized and needs repair69.9.31.137 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

oh wait, it's been fixed now. never mind69.9.31.137 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are the "free recipe" External Links justified?

Are the "free recipe" External Links justified as adding to the encyclopedic content of the topic? Common sense would say no; a link solely for listing "recipes" is just a concoction of potentially endless permutations, not adding anything of substance to the topic such as smoothie history or some type of "how to".... I propose removing external links to pages tagged as listing just recipes as this: a.) does not add encyclopedic content to the topic b.) condones adding on a potentially unlimited number of links to other permutative based recipe listing type sites

I agree with the external links recipe exclusion; if people want to list their recipes and that's it they can do this on DMOZ......

The point of this discussion is to exclude links to specific recipes, because they are endless and permutative. The "How to Make a Smoothie" page goes into specific detail about how to do this beyond the required encyclopedic content of the page. Thus, per the WP:EL page, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail" This site falls into that category. The link is not for a recipe as stated above, it is a "how to" page.

[edit] Smoothies don't have to be "blended with crushed ice, frozen fruit, or frozen yogurt. "

Smoothies don't have to be "blended with crushed ice, frozen fruit, or frozen yogurt. " Just look at Innocent Drinks, their smoothies are 100% fruit as im sure other companies are. 86.16.138.134 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this in the article yesterday (without noticing this talk item) - not sure why you didn't just go and change it! Halsteadk (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated

11 Feb 2008

If a external link is removed because of some ads placed on the site. Should not all external links with the same be removed also. Even those who hide the ads past the home page. If not would this not be discrimination. Should not all be treated fair and equal and abide by policy? If this is true I vote to treat all equal. Keep links of equal value on, or take all off of equal value that are against rules.

VM921   hi shiraz go home

Vmd921 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)