Talk:Ancient grains

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Elijzell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ancient grains

Category:Ancient grains has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Siuenti (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Better sources

The cited sources of Us.naturespath.com, ancientharvest.com, and The Whole Grains Council all appear to fail WP:RS, and, accordingly, should be removed.

Here are sources that do meet WP:RS and could be used for citations and/or to expand the article:

• http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/well-pay-ancient-grains-cheerios
• http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2015/01/20/why-are-we-obsessed-with-ancient-grains
• http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/19/health/la-he-ancient-grains-20110220
• http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/10/23/feeling-its-oats-cheerios-to-add-ancient-grains/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/dining/ancient-grains-are-new-again.html
• http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/08/368689124/fringe-no-more-ancient-grains-will-soon-be-a-cheerios-variety

Also, I have significant doubts that cookbooks should be included in the "Further reading" section; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a guidebook or directory. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Broughton: Hi, thanks for your detailed work in this matter, I will try to expand the article further. Thanks for providing sources. As far as non RS sources are concerned Whole Grain Council can be considered reliable because if we read this news of BBC about subject of "Ancinet grains" then they give reference of "Whole Grain Council" for providing info on these grains. As far as "naturespath" and "ancientharvest" is concerned, actually they give nice and detailed info regarding this subject which can be confirmed by other reliable sources, but as they are companies related to this business we can suspect their reliability. But now we have enough reliable sources and we can easily replace them. Thanks. --Human3015^TALK  19:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ancient grains Should Not Be Deleted

I arrived here from finding that the Category page for "Ancient Grains" which has already been deleted. I see that some "SuperEditor" wants to delete Ancient Grains. I advise against it, although I am no expert (or god forbid, I am not a supereditor) The argument for the deletion of the category seems to have hinged upon the assertion that the BBC had decided that Ancient Grains did not exist. I hyperjumped to the BBC.com article which allegedly proved that Ancient Grains did not exist, and found that no such contention had been advanced. Rather the BBC news author of the article stated simply that a comprehensive list of ancient grains did not exist (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30458761). The article went on to identify those ancient grains which are commonly grouped together. Nothing in the article denied the existence of Ancient Grains. I did a quick Google search and found scores of online authorities for the existence and growing popularity of ancient grains. I did an amazon search and found several books describing ancient grains and indeed incorporating ancient grains into the title (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Grains-Modern-Meals-Mediterranean/dp/1580083544; http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Ancient-Grains-Laura-McBride/dp/1484089685/ref=pd_sim_14_14?ie=UTF8&dpID=61UMtSQUg4L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&refRID=0TRAH4PKCQFDSSHBYX6P; http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Ancient-Grains-Delicious-Amaranth/dp/1440579563/ref=pd_sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&dpID=61G5IlmmcVL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR123%2C160_&refRID=1FM5CCQPNXCJ89M1N3ZK). A few moments of research leads me to the conclusion that ancient grains exist, are quite popular in the health food field and are a topic commonly used by regular people when they shop their natural foods stores or food co-ops (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/08/368689124/fringe-no-more-ancient-grains-will-soon-be-a-cheerios-variety; http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/what-the-heck-are-ancient-grains/; http://www.smartflourfoods.com/ancient-grains/;http://www.coreperformance.com/daily/nutrition/12-ancient-grains-you-may-have-never-tried.html). Before accepting the recommendation of a supereditor without familiarity with natural foods, route it by someone with appropriate expertise. Best wishes, a Wiki friend, LAWinans (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@LAWinans: Anyway, thanks for your comment, you are late in commenting, category has been deleted. Ok. If you want we can bring this article to main page of Wikipedia. I have nominated article for DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Ancient grains. You can help to expand the article, article has sources, you have provided some, also for genetics section we have this Oxford research. In health benefits we can write about gluten intolerance oe various coeliac diseases, benefits of anti-oxidant properties etc. If you help to expand this article then your name will be added as Author of the article and you will get credit of DYK. I hope you will help, this article deserves main page. Thank you. --Human3015^TALK  03:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the current sources in the article express significant doubt on the health benefits of ancient grains; both sides of the issue need to be covered in order for this to meet the neutrality requirement for DYK. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I am being misrepresented here. Note that I voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ancient_Grains although I now think a merge is a better idea. Siuenti (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Siuenti: I have not misinterpreted you, above editor is new and may not know about AfD, anyway, you can also help to expand this article.--Human3015^TALK  00:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Ancient Grains are incredibly important and real. If it wasn't for ancient grains many civilizations and empires would not have existed. Historically speaking it was grains and humans ability to grow them that allowed for civilization and industrial progress to occur. Ancient Grains did exist and this page should be kept. Annieburkus (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Annieburkus

Rye

I've removed the mention of triticale from the article, as it's a fairly recent man-made hybrid of wheat and rye and, as such, certainly not an ancient grain, but where does rye fit into this scheme? Does it qualify as an ancient grain? Do any sources that discuss ancient grains make any mention of it? — Kpalion^(talk) 16:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wild rice

Is wild rice considered an ancient grain? It appears to fit the definition. Should it be included in the article? --Wavehunter (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly added it. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed claim "their health benefits over modern varieties have been disputed by some nutritionists."

Hello! I am new to editing, so please let me know if anything I'm doing is incorrect.

I have boldly removed the following claim: "their [ancient grains'] health benefits over modern varieties have been disputed by some nutritionists" due to lack of evidence. Of the two sources listed, one (from the LA Times) is behind a paywall, and the other (from BBC) does not actually support this claim. The BBC article instead says that the term "ancient grains" is often used as a marketing tool to charge more for a product, and that such products may not actually be a healthy choice because they may contain lots of sugar, etc. This is accurate, but not the same thing as disputing the health benefits of ancient grains over modern varieties. As for the other article, I don't subscribe to the LA Times, so I can't check it, but I don't see any reason it should be an exception to WP:NFC.

I'm sure there ARE nutritionists who would make this claim, but the current sources aren't adequate to support it. A quick google search yielded several very reputable articles (for example, this one from Harvard Health, and this one from healthline, which links to a bunch of studies on the NIH website) that in fact suggest ancient grains DO have health benefits over modern grains. Of course, though, if anyone comes across a reputable source supporting the removed claim, please feel free to revert my change! Bajjer21 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like removing those sources from the text generated some error messages in the References section. If someone can help remove those, that would be great. I don't know how. Bajjer21 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle could you explain why you reverted this edit? Like I said, I'm happy to keep the sentence in as long as we have good sources to support it; I just don't think the current sources do that. Thanks! 2806:370:10A6:9207:AA8E:E0CE:4DBD:5541 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)