Talk:Wheat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Organizational

TODO: someone to merge this set of languages about wheat to the other, much larger set of languages about the same as accessible via https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triticum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.56.197 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Density of Wheat

Could we add the density of wheat 720-780kg/m3 average 750kg/m3? I have this in a textbook, how do I cite a paper textbook and where in the article can it be added? (105.229.121.156 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC))

Well, we all know (hopefully those who keep a log which is ofcource much better then any dial-a-result study.) what castra

Nutrient content of major staple foods[49]

Soyabean data seems to be wrong e.g. FAT, Carbs and protien values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.119.230 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) This table is used in many other pages on Wiki. However this table has many drastic errors especially soyabean. Some one needs to check this table on this page and all other pages fro accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.119.230 (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Where is the source for this claim? "Globally, wheat is the leading source of vegetable protein in human food, having a higher protein content than either maize (corn) or rice, the other major cereals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebramonkey2125 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

wheat is the third most produced, BEHIND rice, according to the page on cereal and the page on corn. Anyway..i dont know how to cite that, and i dont know who to tell this to, i would just like it to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.8.60 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

also the rice page claims rice is the second largest produced......the cited data on this page is from 2003, thats old...

I don't understand the sentence "With rice, wheat is the world's most favored staple food." What does the 'with rice' mean? Does it mean that the two are combined together as a type of food? Or what? I think someone should add a citation so we can find more information about the claim that this sentence makes. Also, a simple statement that maize is also known as corn would help us Merkins. My yahoo email address is acmefixer. 208.127.16.41 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the cultivars come after history? Somehow it looks really bad this way especially when the very first thing you read is a link with no title. M

OK, I'll ask the obvious question: if wheat is "the second-largest cereal crop, tied with maize", which is the largest ? If the article really means that wheat ties with maize as the largest cereal crop, shouldn't it say that ? Or if there's another crop ( rye ? barley ? ), wouldn't it be helpful to say what it is ? And if there is another crop, wouldn't that put rice into fourth place, not third ?

I specified maize>wheat>rice ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugo (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a question, really - just kudos. This article is much improved over the last time I read it. Good job! DrKamaila (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Dr. K.

Can wheat be eaten raw? If not why must it be processed in order to be eaten? I think this might be something interesting to add to the article --Frog (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another valid point. Why even use the qualifier of "ceral crop", when you could go as far as writing that wheat is the second largest crop on the planet. Ceral grains are the biggest type of food grown, so it goes without saying that wheat is the second biggest crop period. Its Corn, wheat, rice, barley, then potatoes. (192.197.71.189 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

I think the following discussion should not be in this but instead in health and diet or similar. This wiki is not about how it affects humans, it's about the wheat itself. 208.127.16.41 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why has so little been done ref the problems with wheat as a source of health problems, sensitivities and so on? As one of the worst offenders of problems to health its about time that an in depth study be done on wheats. It appears now that wheat intolerance may be a factor in diabetes, whereas buckwheat may be actually a medicament base for diabetes. As for replacing meat what do the millions of persons with wheat problems do!!!

 Different types of wheat should be marked by law in a product, not just "wheat". Also persons using wheat illegaly to "improve" a product should be held criminally responsible. (Certain wine manufacturers, Bourbon whisky distillers, Flour refiners to name a few.) 
 Sources of additives should be marked as well for example "dextrose from hard wheat" not just "dextrose".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.49.229.132 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 

Why is there nutritional information for wheat germ in the "As a Food" section? Also in the table below the article is comparing the same wheat germ data with whole grain data from other cereals. I would say that most people consume whole wheat or white flour in higher amounts than wheat germ and it would be less misleading to have the whole grain data on the page and in comparison with other grains. Do you agree? Pertinent nutritional data can be found on the USDA nutrient database at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.11.137 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I just ran into this misleading content and came onto discussion page to see if it was being discussed. Given this question and no responses, I've made a relevant change using the USDA figures referenced - hope it's okay. Denny de la Haye (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also relating to the table data, there was some bolding throughout it but the pattern wasn't clear and wasn't explained in the page text. Possibly someone was trying to highlight 'most nutritional' values or something, but it didn't seem consistent for that either. I've moved all bolding to the wheat column for ease of skim-reading, but please do change it back (and add a key/note maybe) if you know what the hell was going on with the original bolding scheme (and my apologies, if there was a consistent scheme that I broke). Denny de la Haye (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wheat diseases

I've moved this quite long list of disease-causing organisms to a new page, Wheat diseases. It thus forms part of a group of pages that currently includes Wheat taxonomy and could later include Wheat evolution and Wheat breeding. All these are quite technical subjects that take space to expound. I guess we'd like the Wheat page to be more an overview, and to concentrate more on production and use, two aspects that need more work (and will take more space). The remaining stub on disease in Wheat needs lengthening to make a paragraph.Mark Nesbitt 13:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a question: Since it is not easily dissolved in water, what is KCal absorbed by a human body from wheat Bran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.220 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Standardising botanical names for wheat

The Triticum problem Does anyone have any thoughts on how we can tidy up the botanical (Latin) names used for species in this article? There are several different schemes for wheat taxonomy (see [1]) and the key requirement is that any one account should stick to one scheme. The existing wheat page starts with a species list from ITIS which follows the traditional naming scheme, as used widely in trade and by grass taxonomists: T. aestivum, T. aethiopicum, T. araraticum, T. boeoticum, T. carthlicum, T. compactum, T. dicoccon, T. durum, T. ispahanicum, T. karamyschevii, T. militinae, T. monococcum, T. polonicum, T. spelta, T. timopheevii, T. trunciale, T. turanicum, T. turgidum, T. urartu, T. vavilovii, T. zhukovskyi. The ITIS list is not complete (omits T. dicoccoides, for example), but is basically sound and could be fixed.

The wheat page in part uses these ITIS names, but also uses Triticum turgidum dicoccoides (= T. dicoccoides in ITIS scheme) and T. turgidum dicoccum (= T. dicoccum in ITIS). Both these names appear to be derived from something like van Slageren's 1994 classification[2], but with epiphet ranks (e.g. subspecies) omitted and authors incorrectly cited. To consistently follow a van Slageren-type classification, the wheat article would need to be changed so that names such as T. monococcum are converted to T. monococcum ssp. monococcum, T. spelta to T. aestivum ssp. spelta, etc.

The Aegilops problem Another problem is that the closely related goat-grasses (Aegilops genus) are subsumed within Triticum in the article: Triticum speltoides (= Ae. speltoides) Triticum tripsacoides (= Ae. mutica) Triticum searsii (= Ae. searsii) Triticum tauschii (= Ae. tauschii)

Both ITIS and Wikipedia recognise Aegilops as a separate genus to Triticum. Virtually all botanists, and the most recent monograph on Aegilops by van Slageren, agree. Looking on Google, "Triticum tauschii" scores 11300 hits, "Aegilops tauschii" scores 17,700 hits.

Solutions? In the case of Aegilops, I suggest general practice which is to refer these species to Aegilops rather than Triticum. The Triticum synonyms could be given in parantheses.

In the case of Triticum, the situation is more complicated as use of different schemes is more widespread. Geneticists tend to "lump" traditional wheat species together and then distinguish them at subspecies level. Taxonomists and field botanists favour the traditional species concept.

I'd suggest adding a new section on wheat taxonomy that explainsthis background, and a table comparing the traditional scheme to one of the better genetic-based schemes, e.g. van Slageren's. It would be made clear that either scheme is equally valid and that each has advantages/disadvantages. Then throughout the article, standardising in favour of the ITIS scheme (which is more compact, e.g. T. monococcum rather than T. monococcum subsp. monococcum) and makes the distinction between wild and domesticated wheats clearer.

Mark --Mark Nesbitt 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Have added a page on wheat taxonomy and have updated the taxobox and various wheat pages so the taxonomy is all consistent. Mark Nesbitt 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible text from 1881 encyclopedia

Can anyone understand the text from the 188 encyclopedia? If so, please revise it into plain english. I was trying to add metric equivalents to the acre values but I cannot understand the meaning of:

• instances were not wanting to show, that an acre of them, with respect to value, exceeded an acre of thick-chaffed wheat, quantity and quality considered, not less than fifty per cent.

Bobblewik  (talk) 14:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Translation:

• There were plenty of examples showing that an acre of thin-chaffed wheat exceeded the value of an acre of thick-chaffed wheat by at least 50% (taking into account both quantity and quality).

WormRunner | Talk 17:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

statistics on main page

Someone placed a merge tag on International wheat production statistics suggesting it be merged into Wheat. I was the original creator of the stats page so I'll give my reasoning for making it another page. The stats page is a place that can be added to over time as each year passes. It is a place to keep historical data but not something most people would want to read on the main page. The old stats would clutter it up.

By the way, does anyone know where the anonymous poster found the 2004 stats currently listed? [3] Liblamb 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that stats such as these are best on separate pages. Hopefully the data can be extended to prior years.

Seems time to remove the Merge tag so I have done so. Mark Nesbitt 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Special Section For US ?

Why is there a special section on "wheat in US" in the article. US is neither the biggest producer not biggest consumer pf wheat. Start a new page on "wheat in US".

Maybe best on this page until it is more than a stub, then can spin off as new page.Mark Nesbitt 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

-

There is no Wiki policy for "Issue" in "Coutnry"? Should each Country has a separate Article? Or all countries are sections in one Article? --Connection 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's there because somebody took the time to write it. If we end up with signficant discussion of the situation in other geographic areas, we can deal with size problems when necessary. What's so difficult about that? Gene Nygaard 15:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I surely think that this section does not belong here. Otherwise there could also be reason for a section "Wheat in Great Britain", "Wheat in Ireland" .. all the way to "Wheat in Trinidad & Tobango"... :-) --Sascha.leib 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'd prefer to note an inaccuracy here rather than just go ahead and edit the article content. If the regular contributors agree with my statements then I'd be happy to make the changes to the article text. The text in question is "Hard wheats are harder to process and red wheats may need bleaching. Therefore, soft and white wheats usually command higher prices than hard and red wheats on the commodities market." The second sentence is not entirely correct. Soft white wheat does command a high price but soft red wheat does not, under normal circumstances, command a higher price than hard red winter or hard red spring. Its all about the protein levels. Just removing the and between soft and white in the second sentence would be a good start. As for the difficulty of processing hard versus soft wheat, I'm not certain if this is true but I will look into it. --S. O'Toole 13:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wheat Uses

Wheat consumption takes many forms. See for example Parched grain; the French Article "consommé cru puis grillé ou cuit sous forme de bouillie puis de galettes sèches..."; or “Wheat berries (unprocessed seed) are also grown to make wheat grass juice.” found at [[4]]. Shouldn't all this be reflected in this Article? This important (ie, relevant) on two grounds. 1. It reflects on ethnobotany; 2. It reflects on Trade of Wheat. --Connection 01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn't anything "missing" from this article. If you can show some real encyclopedic value, put it in. I seriously doubt it has any significant impact on trade of wheat—maybe you'd like to try to extract some juice from the ripe berries, the only grain that will keep well enough to be involved in international trade, and tell us how well that works. Gene Nygaard 15:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

US-centric

Why a special section on US wheat? This is makes the article very US-centric.

A brief overview of the different kinds of wheat used around the world would be a great addition (I actually came to this page to find out about French wheat and why it is different to Canadian/US wheat), but anything more than that needs to be in a separate article. I suggest an article on North American wheat would be more appropriate than one on US wheat because Canadian wheat growing isn't so very different (as far as I know). Ireneshusband 00:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though the article gives facts of many countries, there is already too mutch written about the US. The most popular wheats in the US is listed, but not of China or another country. Shouldn't there rather be a special article and photos of wheat production in China, since it's the world's biggest producer. The should also be reasons given for the decreace in China's wheat production in recent years. User:Piet Retief 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Arrival in New World

I believe it is appropriate to add in the approximate time when wheat arrived in the New World. This could be easily added to the "History" section in the sentence starting with "By 5,000 years ago..." In another Wikipedia article, wheat is said to have arrived with the Spanish in the 16th century. If there are no objections, I will edit this article to include something along those lines with the appropriate citation and source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BZanetti (talk • contribs) 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

defining fruits and vegetables

Could we get a bit more scientific with encyclodic definitions of fruits and vegetables. Tomatoe is technically a fruit even though in popular (US) culture it is referred to as a vegetable. And so what of wheat? One person in the log mentioned it is closer to a fruit then a vegetable and since corn/maize is related to wheat this would clearly place corn/maize into the fruit category and not the vegetable of popular culture. This is not a "drunken" person's post or whatever. I cannot vouch for the other users with one liners. I thought there was "no such thing as a dumb question". One should not assume. Perhaps the people in charge of streamlining the talk section for wheat are not teachers. (not that I expected them to be) Personally I'm looking for clearer definitions without delving straight into the genome and wikipedia/users so far have been unable to help in this area. User:Shink 15:14, 18 DEC 2006 (UTC)

Things are categorized for different purposes. For one purpose a thing will go in one category while for another purpose it will go in a different category. The distinguishing of fruit from vegetable is one made for the purpose of quickly determining if one is eating properly so the nutritional qualities are used to assign categories: vegetables like celery versus fruits like tomatoes and apples versus grains like wheat and maize versus dairy like cheese versus meats like pork and beef. Because nuts are nutritionally like meat they are for eating pruposes placed in the meat category while for biology purposes they are obviously not meat like at all. Wheat is in the grain category food-wise. The part of wheat that we eat is the seed of a grass, biologically, and is indeed vegetation. WAS 4.250 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1893, the US Supreme Court ruled that even though the tomato is botanically a fruit, once it enters the chain of commerce it becomes, for tax and regulatory purposes, a vegetable. These things are not always determined by "science" (or a specific branch of science such as botany) when there are overriding considerations. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is cracked wheat?

What is cracked wheat?

The main article has a picture captioned "Cracked wheat", but the article has no mention of cracked wheat, let alone a definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.188.24 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I added a "as a food" section to help. Cracked wheat is crushed de-branned uncooked wheat seeds. To a cook it is different from bulgur (cooked cracked wheat) but to the person who eats it they are largely the same since by the time you eat it it is cooked. Sort of the taste difference between precooked and freshly cooked, but even then with modern flash freezing and taste enhancers it can be hard to tell the difference. WAS 4.250 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheat as a DECENT meat replacement

Well, we all know (hopefully those who keep a log which is ofcource much better then any dial-a-result study.) what castrating effects soy has ,

Anyway I just read in local news , that somewhere in Dimona , the 2500 men (some say the healthiest ni the world) community of Ethiopian jews who are all vegan , eat a something called seitan סייטן which is basically textured wheat.. I think I might even go there myself to find out , but if it's true then all the vegans could rejoice that they have a meat replacement that doesn't load their body with estrogens with potency well over a handful of birth control pills.

heres the article: http://food.walla.co.il/?w=/906/1075179 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.22.47 (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Reference

[5] may be a starting point for further research to add at least a few sentences to the article. The US section can be moved to a seperate article if this is getting too long Nil Einne 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Allergen

No mention of it as an allergen. Pretty important as it is one of the major ones in populations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wamatt (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

GA Review

Uncited sections are not a good thing.--Rmky87 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wheat as a symbol

Any info on wheat as a symbol, e.g. in artwork or on national coats of arms and other national insignia? --71.112.96.240 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Footnote 2 has no link. Footnotes 19 and 20 link properly but are not written correctly. 19 is listed as a repeat of 1, but it is a repeat of 2, and 20 is listed as a repeat of 2, when I cannot find it in the footnotes. I think 20 should be "Wheat diseases in Missouri..." Abee60 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 2 now linked. Don't know how to get rid of surplus brackets. Help? Wugo 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe all footnotes are now correct. Please verify. Wugo 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Corn vs. Grain

Corn (from the Oxford English Dictionary): 3. a. collective sing. The seed of the cereal or farinaceous plants as a produce of agriculture; grain. As a general term the word includes all the cereals, wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, rice, etc., and, with qualification (as black corn, pulse corn), is extended to leguminous plants, as pease, beans, etc., cultivated for food. Locally, the word, when not otherwise qualified, is often understood to denote that kind of cereal which is the leading crop of the district; hence in the greater part of England ‘corn’ is = wheat, in North Britain and Ireland = oats; in the U.S. the word, as short for Indian corn, is restricted to maize (see 5). 5. a. orig. U.S. Maize or Indian corn, Zea Mays; applied both to the separated seeds, and to the growing or reaped crop. corn on the cob: green maize suitable for boiling or roasting; maize cooked and eaten on the cob. Wheat, rye, barley, oats, etc. are in U.S. called collectively grain. Corn- in combinations, in American usage, must therefore be understood to mean maize, whereas in English usage it may mean any cereal; e.g. a cornfield in England is a field of any cereal that is grown in the country, in U.S. one of maize.

In the U.S. cereals are "grain", in the British Isles they're "corn". Stateside, only maize is corn. If the distinction must be made in the article, it should be clearly stated, not limited to declaring " In England, wheat is corn." Wugo (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Omar

This is a type of wheat not very popular anymore, but can someone speak authoritatively on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

calories in 100grams of wheat & bushel/kg/lb per acre

"100 grams of hard red winter wheat contain about 12.6 grams of protein, 1.5 grams of total fat, 71 grams of carbohydrate (by difference), 12.2 grams of dietary fiber, and 3.2 mg of iron (17% of the daily requirement); the same weight of hard red spring wheat contains about 15.4 grams of protein, 1.9 grams of total fat, 68 grams of carbohydrate (by difference), 12.2 grams of dietary fiber, and 3.6 mg of iron (20% of the daily requirement).[26]

Gluten, a protein found in wheat (and other Triticeae), cannot be tolerated by people with celiac disease (an autoimmune disorder in ~1% of Indo-European populations)."

Calculations probably wouldn't be too difficult... Anyone know how many calories in 100 grams of hard red winter wheat?

Also, on average how many lb/bushel/kg per acre/unit area is averaged? Might be interesting...--Emesee (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't think the figure of energy (1419) is correct or even close. i looked at the referred source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quatso (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wheat nutrient energy (1419) per 100 gram is okay; To verify, please see: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6377?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&sort=&qlookup=durum+wheat&offset=&format=Full&new=

if the link doesn't work, google to Full Report - Nutrient data for 20076, Wheat, durum; also check Statistics Report for durum wheat, on USDA's Nutrient Data Library for inter-sample variance and population data

Wiki guidelines on sources can be studied on WP:VNT. If you believe another source is more accurate and verifiable, you must identify your source and persuade other wiki contributors why that it is more reliable than stats posted by the United States Dept of Agriculture. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

While I was updating the nutritional value template, I was able to identify that the figures used in the Nutrient content of major staple foods table were those for Wheat, durum. I would have used those in the nutrition box, but I couldn't resolve the source for the figure of fiber 10.7 g. Where did that figure come from? Chango369w (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

you guys are right. i was confusing with calories. sorry. (if it's better to delete my comment please do)Quatso (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical production stats

The table sourced to fao.org in Wheat#Economics, gives data for all the years going back to 1961. Some more of that data/source could be usefully extracted here, as a table or graph perhaps. (Just a note.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

asdadssdasadsadas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.2.157 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the measure used for wheat when buying/selling on the markets and what is the current price of wheat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.213.92 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

what is the planting rate per acer ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.133.229 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ug99

Since there are an epedemic(africa,asia,middle east) with ug99 right now(09) that potentially can spread and treat the overall production - wouldnt it be a good thing to mention it? (i know deseases are moved to ther own artikel, but still) - maby just briefly (i dont know enough to write it) I know sceintists have made a new ug99-resistent weat, but I've heard there are old resistent types also, so maby they could be mentiont? - i would find that interesting - Luise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.173.177 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 wheat stats

There does not seem much point in having this table in the article as it already has 2007 stats. So I have moved it here.

Top Ten Wheat Exporters — 2004 (million metric ton)
United States	31.6
Australia	18.5
Canada	15.1
France	14.9
Argentina	10.0
Germany	3.9
Russia	4.7
United Kingdom	2.5
Kazakhstan	2.4
India	2.0
World Total	105.5
Source: UN Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO)

Mark Nesbitt (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thresh Free Wheat

This more primitive morphology consists of toughened glumes that tightly enclose the grains, and (in domesticated wheats) a semi-brittle rachis that breaks easily on threshing.

To my observation, what is so primitive about hiding the most precious part, it's treasure to mankind is thought of as uselessly outdated and protection against bacterial, virus, and other sorts of programmed defenses.....is being perceived with the agenda of modern technological prowess. To step out from neutral observation and a bit uptight, but the entire section insinuates modern wheat as superior, whereas man's health has deteriorated at or faster than the pace of domestication. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I think primitive is being used here in the evolutionary sense, as the hulled form is that present in the wild ancestor. Will see if this can be made clearer in the text. Mark Nesbitt (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why no Marquis Wheat?

Considering the importance that the innovation of Marquis wheat brings, why is there no article or other mention of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.8.20 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic Price Rise - Commercial Use

A paragraph in the section on Commercial Use identifies the dramatic price rise of 2007 and lists all the usual suspects for reasons. The article "The Food Bubble" in the July 2010 issue of Harpers Magazine suggests the root cause may have actually been an inadvertent effect of "investing" in a new financial instrument, and that although the usual suspect reasons made the situation even worse they did not originally cause it. While certainly not mainstream nor proven (and perhaps even bordering on bizarre), it seems to me this alternative should at least be mentioned, and hopefully investigated thoroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.182.194 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading something about the increased use of corn (maize) for ethanol. The price of corn went up, so agribusiness (farmers) planted more corn and less wheat, thus causing the supply of wheat to diminish. 208.127.16.41 (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

the photo of 1943 wheat says baled and stacked wheat. Should it not be-sheaved and stooked?216.123.177.82 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done(Moved to bottom).Thank you for the correction. --Banana (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shock and wheat as symbol

Nothing about shock of wheat? The symbolism of the shock and so on... --194.144.0.162 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit to intro paragraph

Before my edit, the information in the intro was organized as follows:

1. "Wheat" refers to species of the genus Triticum.
2. Wheat is a grass.
3. Wheat originated in the Fertile Crescent region.
4. Wheat is cultivated worldwide (for unknown reasons).
5. 607 million tons of wheat were produced in 2007 (again for unknown reasons).
6. Wheat is the third-most produced cereal grain in the world.
7. Etc.

This is not a logical order for the information. If I didn't know anything about wheat before reading this article, I would have to read to the end of the second sentence before I grasp the most important meaning of wheat: as a cereal grain. Several points from the first two sentences do not make sense unless you know that wheat is cultivated as a grain. Therefore, I have modified the introduction to present the information as follows:

1. "Wheat" refers to species of the genus Triticum.
2. Wheat is a cereal grain (and hence a type of grass).
3. Wheat originated in the Fertile Crescent region.
4. Wheat is cultivated worldwide (the implication is that is cultivated for use as a grain).
5. 607 million tons of wheat were produced in 2007.
6. Wheat is the third-most produced cereal grain in the world.
7. Etc.

I think this version offers more clarity to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Augurar (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of wheat to other major staple foods

This table includes a wheat germ column, but wheat germ is not a staple food. This same table, or parts of it, has been copied into several articles (see my contribs for some others I tagged). I suggest that all the data be verified and then make the table into a separate page which can be transcluded into this and the other articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

processing

I came to this page looking for how the chaf, bran, germ, semolina and whatever else are separated in an industrial process, and also historically. I didn't find it. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Spp.

In the lead, we see "Wheat (Triticum spp.)[1] is a cereal grain, originally from the Levant region of the Near East and Ethiopian Highlands, but now cultivated worldwide." Most readers will not recognize "spp.", which has its own article. I plan to wikilink "spp." to its article (actually, the Species article, to which Spp. redirects) unless there are objections. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cultivation Cycles

I don't see in the article any substantial explanation of the planting/harvesting cycles for wheat generally, nor any comparison of the cycles for spring and winter wheats. A few questions readily come to mind. Can the same plot of land grow two crops per year? When are the two kinds planted and harvested? If there is crop rotation, does that mean rotation over years or rotation within a year? It would seem that these and similar basic questions should get some serious treatment in the Agronomy section.CountMacula (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Better model of a wheat grain

you should translate the file and replace the photo in the article--92.193.85.235 (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And more detail on what parts are used for what. That's what I came here for and I still don't know.--203.178.91.70 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Style, copyright, and (possibly) dubious source?

There is a section that currently states:

"However, the ever growing world population will certainly make it necessary to increase wheat production, especially if meat consumption grows in the developing countries, too. The reason for the latter is that to produce more meat more fodder is needed, and as a consequence wheat self-sufficiency level of the countries will go under changes. If the human society once reaches such a high level of civilization that ensuring the well-being of few people does not endanger the life of others, then intensification of wheat production and hence establishing food security become an utmost important issue for everybody. And even if the current level of consumption is theoretically sustainable, there is another serious problem that we have to face: today people are dying of hunger in the world even apart from this problem. If we go beyond looking at the average consumption level on the global scale, we will face immense differences among the level of consumption in the different regions of the globe. There is a well known howling discrepancy between the developed and the developing world: namely, there is excess and at the same time wasting of food in the so-called modern societies, and on the other hand lack or undersupply of food in the poorer countries. People are suffering from overweight and its consequent illnesses in the developed world and on the other part of the world people are suffering from lack of food, from undernourishment and its consequent illnesses."[58]

The passage is taken verbatim from http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/6/3/2012/2012060367809689.pdf The style seems too argumentative to be appropriate, and I'm not sure we are supposed to directly quote such large passages. Additionally (and possibly more importantly), DavidPublishing seems to be a dubious source: http://collegemisery.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/scam-warning-from-chrryblstr.html https://plus.google.com/114239303202565211988/posts/7w26rxtAEDz#114239303202565211988/posts/7w26rxtAEDz (a colleague ws solicited by them, and I came to this page as a result of trying to investigate them). Iapetus (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that passage.CountMacula (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Black sea region

Kazakhstan is quite far from the Black Sea. Maybe Black and Caspian Sea region is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.89.41 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Fwiw, the usage of the page began with BP, but BCE was established by this edit and should kindly be maintained. — LlywelynII 14:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The last half of Health Concerns is entirely personal opinion

"Wheat is a root cause of obesity.[57] Gluten exorphins are opioid peptides which bind to opiate receptors in the brain causing pleasure and acting as an appetite stimulant and withdrawal symptoms.[58] Combined with a high glycemic index wheat promotes obesity and some diseases. Also, the United States government subsidizes wheat production making it unnaturally inexpensive thus more available. Also, gluten is an inflammatory agent and inflammation is a "cornerstone"[58] of brain disorders."

A Huffington Post article and a private book on dieting are not appropriate sources for such a broad claim. It needs to be either separated from personal opinion by directly citing the opinions' sources rather than the opinion itself. If that cannot be done, this assertion needs to be removed. 68.126.251.195 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Jenkins

I agree and thank you for bringing this up. I was about to say the same thing when I read that. I doubt a Huffington Post blog is a reliable enough to be authoritative enough to say an unbelievably strong statement that wheat is the root cause of obesity. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I think we can fix this by removing the opinion from the facts.

It is true that "[Wheat has] a high glycemic index, which promotes obesity and some diseases. " As does any other food with a high glycemic index. That shouldn't need any citing. Wheat has a higher index than sugar. Diabetics know that very well.

As for the comment relating to the studies showing a link between Wheat and brain disorders, if you google-around there are many studies to see. You'll also find facts about how doctors successfully treat patients with brain disorders such as ADHD, Schizophrenia, Autism, Epilepsy, etc. by prescribing not drugs but Wheat and Glutein free diets. Studies show that a high glutin & glycemic diet harms mental ability of people. They tested people's mental acuity on different diets. Note, these patients in the studies didn't have Celiac Disease.

Here are some links to the studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8598704 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787912 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2000.tb00087.x/pdf http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/5/1013.full http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/74/9/1221.full

So we can edit it to something like this. What do you think?

"Wheat has a high glycemic index which promotes obesity and some diseases such as Diabetes. Also, gluten has been found by multiple studies[99] to be negatively related to certain brain disorders."

Mattdruid (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What does this percent number mean?

http://bayimg.com/haoPMAAFf

3.985 mg = 190%

29 mg = 3%

How is that possible?

84.234.60.182 (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The footnote on the table says the percentages refer to Dietary Reference Intake. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a word about the man who discover the wild emmer...

109.64.141.206 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

wtf

There are a few missing parts to this story. One is the fortification of flour with various chemicals including folic acid. Two is the mixing of the flour with preservatives. Three is the separation of the three basic parts of wheat, starch, fiber and wheat germ during grinding. Four is the bleaching of the flour to make it white. While the wheat germ is responsible for much of the nutritional value of wheat it also goes bad with time and causes the flour to become rancid. The result is that little of the wheat germ is present in the finished product. Most of what is sold as commercial flour ( or commercial white flour) is starch. Whole wheat flour has some added fiber and (presumably) is back to the constituency of the original flour.

Recently there has been a increasing number of of people who wish to avoid the added chemicals and preservatives and do not want to loose the beneficial effects of wheat germ. Their approach is to buy wheat berries and grind them as needed and bake with fresh ground flour with no chemicals. The resulting bread is ( they say) far superior to commercial bread. Arydberg (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Wheat. 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/20150610121002/http://www.nue.okstate.edu/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm to http://nue.okstate.edu/crop_information/world_wheat_production.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150823101215/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020041417/http://www.kansascity.com:80/business/story/295713.html to http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/295713.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141010054622/http://www.blackseagrain.net/photo/ukraine-becomes-worlds-third-biggest-grain-exporter-in-2011-minister to http://www.blackseagrain.net/photo/ukraine-becomes-worlds-third-biggest-grain-exporter-in-2011-minister
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090422201518/http://www.cimmyt.org:80/research/economics/map/facts_trends/wheat00-01/wheat00-01.html to http://www.cimmyt.org/research/economics/map/facts_trends/wheat00-01/wheat00-01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140502100220/http://ohioline.osu.edu:80/b631/b631_5.htmlField to http://ohioline.osu.edu/b631/b631_5.htmlField
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105113052/http://muextension.missouri.edu:80/explore/agguides/crops/g04319.htm to http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/crops/g04319.htm

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} 00:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

origins of wheat linked to mesopotamia where the Euphrates flows into Syria - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TIcVJGfjLU (10:01/51:57)

origins of wheat linked to mesopotamia where the Euphrates flows into Syria as early as 15000 bc - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TIcVJGfjLU (10:01/51:57) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.236.82 (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Zefr

@Zefr: has reverted all my edits.

I accept this one (as I said it in the reasons for editing (→‎Health concerns: There may be a mistake and non-celiac gluten sensitivity was deleted. Adding and referencing. I respect that I was added too much information for this page, but NOTHING was an original research: all was in sources.)) but is not acceptable the deletion of information about non-celiac gluten sensitivity and its references, that are secondary sources, review articles, indexed in PubMed.

There is a lot and growing literature about the existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity. This syndrome was originally described in the 1980s and included since 2010 in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders.

This practice of Zefr seems an attempt to bias the information. So, considering the neutral point of view necessary in Wikipedia, I will revert the last edit of Zefr.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca - thanks for the explanation which leads me to accept your text including NCGS as a health concern. However, as the "Oslo definitions" state, NCGS is poorly understood, indicating that it would be misleading to the general encyclopedia user and therefore not WP:NPOV to emphasize NCGS "with a prevalence estimated to be 6-10 times higher than that of coeliac disease". Consequently, I am removing that statement in parentheses. Kind regards --Zefr (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've asked folks at WikiProject Medicine to take a look at recent edits in this article and other related ones. Gluten related subjects tend to need multiple experienced eyes, so hopefully they'll have some insight or validate what's already been done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wheat. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100615060931/http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea210.html to http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea210.html

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} 15:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why don't people talk about.....

wheat cultivars a lot??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Cereal scientist are talking about wheat varieties a lot in stead of the cultivars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually cultivar and variety have different meanings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Therefore, an official definition of the two words is essential — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at the following http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/hortnews/2008/2-6/CultivarOrVariety.html

Do not divert the following ......to ......

Please do not mix the following

• List of cereals, and * List of breakfast cereals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I wish to see the following topic......

the topic of http://www.dwr.res.in/ as the examples of

• International Rice Research Institute
• Central Rice Research Institute
• Bangladesh Rice Research Institute
• Philippine Rice Research Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of content and serious misconceptions in a recent edit

In this edit: [6] by Zefr, this content, supported by a review, was removed without reasons: "Both gliadin (a component of gluten) and wheat germ agglutinin (a lectin) may increase intestinal permeability and activate the immune system. This process is not limited to people with coeliac disease, gliadin has been demonstrated to increase intestinal permeability both in persons with coeliac disease and in non-coeliac people."

This is what the references say (secondary sources, based on various studies):

PMID 27065833 Review
[7] We have shown that in all of us bread makes the gut wall more permeable, encouraging the migration of toxins and undigested food particles to sites where they can alert the immune system. We have shown that in all of us the digestion of grain and dairy generates opioid-like compounds, and that these cause mental derangement if they make it to the brain.

PMID 23482055 Review

[8] In the present review, we describe how the daily consumption of wheat products and other related cereal grains could contribute to the manifestation of chronic inflammation and autoimmune diseases. Both in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrate that gliadin and WGA can both increase intestinal permeability and activate the immune system. The effects of gliadin on intestinal permeability and the immune system have also been confirmed in humans. ... Stimulation of immune cells by gliadin is not only restricted to CD patients; the incubation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from healthy HLA-DQ2-positive controls and CD patients with gliadin peptides stimulated the production of IL-23, IL-1β and TNF-α in all donors tested. Nevertheless, the production of cytokines was significantly higher in PBMC derived from CD patients [14]. Similar results were obtained by Lammers et al. [15], who demonstrated that gliadin induced an inflammatory immune response in both CD patients and healthy controls, though IL-6, Il-13 and IFN-γ were expressed at significantly higher levels in CD patients. ... In order for gliadin to interact with cells of the immune system, it has to overcome the intestinal barrier. Gliadin peptides cross the epithelial layer by transcytosis or paracellular transport. Paracellular transport occurs when intestinal permeability is increased, a feature that is characteristic for CD [17]. It is indicated by several studies that increased intestinal permeability precedes the onset of CD and is not just a consequence of chronic intestinal inflammation [18,19]. Gliadin has been demonstrated to increase permeability in human Caco-2 intestinal epithelial cells by reorganizing actin filaments and altering expression of junctional complex proteins [20]. Several studies by Fasano et al. show that the binding of gliadin to the chemokine receptor CXCR3 on epithelial IEC-6 and Caco2 cells releases zonulin, a protein that directly compromises the integrity of the junctional complex [21,22]. Although zonulin levels were more up-regulated in CD patients, zonulin was activated by gliadin in intestinal biopsies from both CD and non-CD patients [21,22], suggesting that gliadin can increase intestinal permeability also in non-CD patients, yet increased intestinal permeability was not observed in a group of gluten-sensitive patients [13].

There are several references to support it, for example:

PMID 21248165 Review
[9] Among the several potential intestinal luminal stimuli that can trigger zonulin release, we identified small intestinal exposure to bacteria and gluten as the two more powerful triggers (Fig. 7).

This previous sentence: "Of the three separate genomes that modern wheat contains, the one that produces a better quality bread, and has become more common, also contains the most toxic type of gluten". was modified by Zefr as " Of the three separate genomes that modern wheat contains, the one that produces a better quality, common bread also contains the type of gluten associated with gluten sensitivity.". which has completely distorted the meaning.

The ref says: "Ironically, of the three separate genomes that modern wheat contains from the spontaneous cross-fertilization of three different wild species (e.g., Murphy, 2007), the genome responsible for the best quality bread is associated with the most toxic proteins (Kucek et al., 2015)."... Indeed, the wheat varieties that contain the most detrimental type of gluten have become more common (van den Broeck et al., 2010) It means that this genome is currently the most common among varieties of wheat, not that it is used to produce "common bread".

And about this text worded by Zefr: "common bread also contains the type of gluten associated with gluten sensitivity"., saying “the type of gluten associated with gluten sensitivity” implies a serious misconception: that there may be "safe" gluten. There is not "one type" of gluten associated with gluten intolerance, but "all" gluten harms people with celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity. What the reference says is quite different: "the genome responsible for the best quality bread is associated with the most toxic proteins".

I will edit and fix it.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Would be helpful to have a better reference than the Bressan-Kramer article which is questionable for WP:MEDRS. It is basically an anti-gluten position paper, full of conjecture and biased emphasis. There is exaggerated hyperbole of what human effects may occur based on lab studies. The title and subtitles cause concerns: to suggest that bread and gluten are "drugs" and lead to "holes in our gut" and mental disease, a clarion for WP:SOAP. I believe you cherry-pick sources like this to support your own anti-gluten bias extensively discussed here. --Zefr (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zefr: Remember that your ability to distinguish secondary sources that meet WP:MEDRS criteria is being questioned, and you have been warned [10]. You are continuosly deleting well sourced content. However, despite the warning you insist on applying your own "interpretation".[11] That we must apply are the Wikipedia policies.

The three reviews I used, and you are questioning, are:

53. PMID 27065833 Frontiers in Human Neuroscience - Current Impact Factor: 3.42

60. PMID 23482055 Nutrients - Current Impact Factor: 4.74

61. PMID 21248165 Physiological Reviews - Current Impact Factor: 37.22

Your interest in soften this issue is dangerous, such as rewording this: "Modern wheat varieties that have become more common and produce a better quality bread, also contain the most toxic proteins". as "Modern wheat varieties that have become more common and produce a better quality bread also may contain proteins toxic to a small percentage of consumers". You justified such barbarity with this edit summary (→‎Health concerns: copyedit for context of WP:NPOV & to reduce anti-gluten hype per WP:SOAP) "May" contain???? ALL varieties of wheat and related grains ALWAYS contain toxic proteins for CD and NCGS people. NPV? SOAP?...

It is really worrying that someone who is editing on a subject with so important implications for health writes such dangerous inaccuracies.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

References

The phrase "ALL varieties of wheat and related grains ALWAYS contain toxic proteins for CD and NCGS people" is incorrect, and misleading. In my opinion it probably reveals an extreme bias. Many people are allergic to prawns, but we could not reasonably say that they contain toxic proteins. Many people are intolerant to lactose, but we could not reasonably say that milk is toxic. Whilst fully recognizing that consumption of wheat causes severe and debilitating problems to some people, this must be kept in proper proportion, and mentioned using proper terminology. For instance "gluten is a protein that causes health problems in a small percentage of consumers" would comunicate this problem, be correct and not mislead. RAMRashan (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Many people are allergic to prawns, but we could not reasonably say that they contain toxic proteins. Many people are intolerant to lactose, but we could not reasonably say that milk is toxic." Of course not. You are talking about different things. The reaction to gluten is not an allergy nor an intolerance. In susceptible people, gliadin (protein found in gluten) stimulates innate immuno-competent cells, causes an autoimmune reaction, and exerts a direct cellular toxicity, which gradually damages and destroys the intestinal mucosa. Take a look, for example, at this review PMID 27251606 The cross-talk between enterocytes and intraepithelial lymphocytes. Toxic proteins is the right term, used by specialists and scientists [12] [13][14] [15].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Some foods do contain toxic substances that need to be degraded or denatured before eating. For instance, many types of cassava have roots with cyanide-contain substances when raw. If any person eats raw cassava root they are likely to become very ill or die (of course, when properly treated cassava is a healthy food).

Of course, reactions to prawns, milk and wheat are very different to the reaction to raw cassava or any other toxin-containing food. The reactions do not involve toxicity of the food themselves, but the reactions of a proportion of people to these particular foods. Wheat can be eaten by most people, with no ill effects whatsoever, and wheat is recommended as a healthy food by numerous authoritative sources. I think it's important to convey the seriousness of celiac disease whilst avoiding the danger of misleading. The most suitable references for Wikipedia would be authoritative sources that synthesize accepted knowledge, at an appropriate level of detail, for instance a national medical association or the FDA. I have substituted your sentence for a quotation from the FDA, it does convey the seriousness of celiac disease, but in a more suitable context.

Whilst modern bread wheats may contain more gluten than older bread wheat varieties, I doubt there is any clinical relevance. A person with celiac disease should not eat any variety of wheat.

The health concerns section is overdetailed, and non-neutral. Some references are clearly inappropriate. For instance, an academic citation which presents “new frontiers” is not a good citation for Wikipedia, where knowledge should reflect the generally accepted.

I have made some changes, but this section clearly needs more work to correct these problems. RAMRashan (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RAMRashan please, see WP:MEDRS and be careful to follow WP:PRESERVE. We build (add), not destroy (remove).

You have unjustifiably removed correctly referenced content and 6 reviews which fulfils WP:MEDRS, and replaced content with this information about CD [ "In people with celiac disease, foods that contain gluten trigger production of antibodies that attack and damage the lining of the small intestine. Such damage limits the ability of celiac disease patients to absorb nutrients and puts them at risk of other very serious health problems."] which is an incomplete and outdated idea about CD, and does not reflect the current knowledge (the damage of the lining of the small intestine is only one part and CD often presents without malabsortion; CD is an autoimmune systemic disease, the immune response to gluten may lead to the production of several different autoantibodies that can affect any organ or tissue of the body).

Remember, in this context toxic proteins is the right term [16] [17][18] [19] Two examples from FDA: Health Hazard Assessment for Gluten Exposure in Individuals with Celiac Disease: Determination of Tolerable Daily Intake Levels and Levels of Concern for Gluten (Office of Food Safety Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food and Drug Administration) “ …other toxic grains (i.e., rye, barley) associated with CD…” “A range of work conducted over many years has established that each of these subfractions (of gliadin) can be enterotoxic in sensitive individuals” etc.; FDA’s Responses to Comments on the Report Titled “Health Hazard Assessment for Gluten Exposure in Individuals with Celiac Disease: Determination of Tolerable Daily Intake Levels and Levels of Concern for Gluten.” December 2012 "Because of the nature of the agent we were evaluating (gluten), the assessment of the toxicity and/or detrimental effects consisted of the evaluation of..." "In the safety assessment, we relied entirely upon human studies to obtain data on gluten toxicity in subjects with celiac disease." etc.

The WP:MEDRS reviews removed in these edits [20] are:

1. Fasano A (2011). "Zonulin and its regulation of intestinal barrier function: the biological door to inflammation, autoimmunity, and cancer". Physiol Rev (Review). 91 (1): 151–75. doi:10.1152/physrev.00003.2008. PMID 21248165. Current Impact Factor: 30.924
2. Fasano A (Apr 2005). "Clinical presentation of celiac disease in the pediatric population". Gastroenterology. 128 (4 Suppl 1): S68–73. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.02.015. PMID 15825129. Current Impact Factor: 18.187
3. Lundin KE, Wijmenga C (Sep 2015). "Coeliac disease and autoimmune disease-genetic overlap and screening". Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 12 (9): 507–15. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2015.136. PMID 26303674. Current Impact Factor: 14.435
4. Penagini F, Dilillo D, Meneghin F, Mameli C, Fabiano V, Zuccotti GV (Nov 18, 2013). "Gluten-free diet in children: an approach to a nutritionally adequate and balanced diet". Nutrients (Review). 5 (11): 4553–65. doi:10.3390/nu5114553. PMC 3847748Freely accessible. PMID 24253052. Current Impact Factor: 3.759
5. de Punder K, Pruimboom L (2013). "The dietary intake of wheat and other cereal grains and their role in inflammation". Nutrients (Review). 5 (3): 771–87. doi:10.3390/nu5030771. PMC 3705319Freely accessible. PMID 23482055. Current Impact Factor: 3.759
6. Bressan P, Kramer P (2016). "Bread and Other Edible Agents of Mental Disease". Front Hum Neurosci (Review). 10: 130. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00130. PMC 4809873. PMID 27065833. Current Impact Factor: 3.634

I will restore the previous version.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The word toxic was used by the FDA in the context of evaluation within a very specific context, and in a specialised document. In the pages destined for the general public the word "toxic" is not used, and it shouldn't be used in the Wikipedia article, because it is obviously misleading.

Your assertion that the FDA expresses an "incomplete and outdated idea about CD" shows that you are pushing a fringe view. The FDA is an excellent source to determine what we really know about food and health issues. It's inappropritate to use an academic citation which presents “new frontiers” (and therefore, by definition ideas, that are not incorporated into the consensus) on Wikipedia.

This section needs reformulating RAMRashan (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RAMRashan, you said: "Your assertion that the FDA expresses an "incomplete and outdated idea about CD" shows that you are pushing a fringe view." FDA source is exactly what I said: an incomplete and outdated idea about CD. Knowledge about celiac disease has tremendously evolved in recent years. Your FDA source is from 2013 and is outdated. Look at, for example, the evolution of CD definition in World Gastroenterology Organisation Guideline:

• World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines - Celiac disease April 2012 "Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic, immunologically determined form of enteropathy affecting the small intestine in genetically predisposed children and adults. It is precipitated by the ingestion of gluten-containing foods [1]. It is also referred to as celiac sprue, gluten-sensitive enteropathy, or nontropical sprue."

• World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines - Celiac disease July 2016 "Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic, multiple-organ autoimmune disease that affects the small intestine in genetically predisposed children and adults. It is precipitated by the ingestion of gluten-containing foods [3]. It is also referred to as celiac sprue, gluten-sensitive enteropathy, or nontropical sprue."

Clearly, not a fringe view. It is a matter of being up to date.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how the definitions that you just posted from the World Gastroenterology Organisation are incompatible with the FDA definition I previously used " In people with celiac disease, foods that contain gluten trigger production of antibodies that attack and damage the lining of the small intestine. Such damage limits the ability of celiac disease patients to absorb nutrients and puts them at risk of other very serious health problems."

Neither of the definitions that you just posted from the World Gastroenterology Organisation use the word "toxic". This clearly supports the removal of the word "toxic" from this section. If the World Gastroenterology Organisation doesn't need to use the word "toxic", then neither does this Wikipedia article. RAMRashan (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already explained... With all due respect, if you do not understand the difference between an enteropathy and a systemic disease, there is little I can do. Anyway, let's see another source: European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Coeliac Disease "ESPGHAN guidelines for the diagnosis of CD were last published in 1990 (1) and at that time represented a significant improvement in both the diagnosis and management of CD. Since 1990, the understanding of the pathological processes of CD has increased enormously, leading to a change in the clinical paradigm of CD from a chronic, gluten-dependent enteropathy of childhood to a systemic disease with chronic immune features affecting different organ systems." This difference you do not understand is the reason why more than 80% of people with CD remain undiagnosed. While continuing to think of an "intestinal disease that causes malabsorption," most cases will continue to be unrecognized and undiagnosed.

Regarding the term "toxic" or "toxicity", you are facing your personal opinion against all medical literature. This is not a reason to support its elimination WP:NPOV. WP:MEDRS does not say that the only valid sources are the clinical guidelines, even less that we just have to use the content of World Gastroenterology Organisation Guidelines, nor if it does not talk about one thing, we have to delete it...

The only possibility would be that you get WP:MEDRS sources that deny that gluten is toxic in this minority of the population. And to achieve neutrality, we should put both points of view.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You have failed explain how the FDA definition is incompatible with the World Gastroenterology Organisation. Never mind, if you prefer the definition of Celiac disease of the World Gastroenterology Organisation, let's use that. How can you object using that definition? RAMRashan (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to expand definitions, we already have wikilinks. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBranca, you may think that the FDA concept of celiac disease is "incomplete and outdated",but it really is not the role of Wikipedia to revise the FDA's thinking, especially as regards to food and health, and especially not citing articles with title such as "Bread and Other Edible Agents of Mental Disease”!

I have used the current definition of celiac disease of the World Gastroenterology Organisation, which you BallenaBlanca cited. Please, BallenaBlanca, do not return to a defintion that uses the word "toxic". If you can find an authoritative source, such as the FDA, or a National Medical Association that uses a definition, for public consumption, of celiac disease that includes the word "toxic" please post in this talk section and we can discuss. RAMRashan (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not distort my words again (Using defintion of celiac disease,as suggested by BallenaBranca in Talk.). What I have said is exactly the opposite. There is no need to expand definitions, we already have wikilinks

Also, you have just violated another Wikpiedia policy by copying literally from a copyrighted source © Copyright 2016 World Gastroenterology Organisation. All rights reserved.

You already have the sources you are asking for, and there are hundreds of them, but you are doing "cherry picking".

In summary: What you are asking is to use your "own" policies, not Wikipedia policies, to achieve your goal, which is to remove a denomination you do not like and at least a reference whose title you do not like. This is not allowed. Please, before you continue editing, make sure you understand and comply with Wikipedia policies.

I restored the page [21] and added a FDA ref [22].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any copyright issue in using a short quotation and citing the source. Your insistence on using your own formulation of words to include the word "toxin" when gluten and celiac disease are introduced is wrong and misleading. Please choose a definition from an authorative source, a major medical association or the FDA to use instead. I'm not talking about "expanding a definition", but using a good one.

References you have chosen, from low impact and pay-to-publish journals, are not good references. Celiac disease is a well-established disease and a terrible problem, but the references you have chosen include large worrying health claims that go well beyond what is accepted and known, they are not well-supported. If these exaggerated health claims were well-supported it would be easy to find authoratiive sources for them. The title of one speaks for itself "Bread and Other Edible Agents of Mental Disease”. Please remove these references.

Neutral point of view is important for Wikipedia. The section as was "Health concerns" was inherantly unbalanced, especially with the wordings and references you have insisted on. It's important that people take celiac disease seriously, but also important that wheat and health is presented in a balanced way that reflects accepted knowledge. I sincerely believe that your insistence in using poor sources, and the word toxin will not help Wikipedia readers take celiac disease seriously.

I have changed the section title to "Health benefits and concerns" and introduced some text about the health benefits of eating wheat and a bit more detail about FDA's gluten-free labeling regulation. RAMRashan (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"I don't think there is any copyright issue in using a short quotation and citing the source." It is not about what we think, Wikipedia policies are very clear about this. This is not a quotation, nor brief, is a copyvio infringement from © Copyright 2016 World Gastroenterology Organisation. All rights reserved. If you want to quote, you have to put quote marks or formatting clearly indicate where the quotation begins and ends, for example using this template {{quote}}, and cite expressly the source in the text, in addition to the reference. This may help you: WP:QUOTE.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Debate on Bressan-Kramer article

There has been good and healthy debate between RAMRashan and BallenaBlanca, with a fairer text and more reasonable position about gluten "toxicity" in the Health benefits and concerns section. Thanks to you both. Here, I'm raising the use of this reference in the article, and invite discussion by you both about it. Although a review article and arguably compliant with WP:MEDRS, the Bressan-Kramer thinking is substantially WP:FRINGE, in my opinion. Without dissecting it point-by-point, I suggest terms like the following are far outside conventional scientific thinking and are truly outrageous beyond measured reasoning: 1) "bread (wheat) is an agent of mental disease", 2) "bread (wheat) increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier", 3) bread (wheat) causes "holes in our gut", 4) bread (wheat) may cause schizophrenia or autism, plus several other examples I could raise, none of which have been proved by MEDRS-quality sources. I believe this paper's extreme views remove its eligibility for use in the encyclopedia, much as it would likely be rejected by mainstream science. I removed it from the article and propose it remain excluded. There are other reviews in use to support statements where Bressan-Kramer was applied. --Zefr (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Zefr for your kind comments and invitation to dialogue.

First of all I would like to say that I think we all agree that coeliac disease is a terrible health problem that should be taken seriously. I also believe that all here in this discussion probably want the same thing: to provide a good source of information.

The remit of Wikipedia for encyclopedic information: information that is well established. Coeliac disease is an area of major medical concern. It has received a lot of attention from major medical associations and scientific institutions. For coeliac they are the best source of information.

The Bressan-Kramer review is obviously extreme fringe. It should remain excluded. Its continued use would likely discredit this article in Wikipedia, but also, many other references used by BallenaBlanca are not appropriate for this subject for Wikipedia. For instance one article is on "new frontiers" of knowledge, and it was written recently. I don't believe that Wikipedia is the place for the presentation of scientific findings that are not well established. Another of the articles is in Theoretical and Applied Genetics from 2010. It’s a nice article, and seems like good scholarship, but the hypothesis that the article raises is highly speculative “wheat breeding may have contributed to increased prevalence of celiac disease”. Even the findings of the article at the protein epitope level are not well-established. Its clinical significance, if any at all, is unknown.

Once again, thank you RAMRashan (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Back again, just seen a comment by Zefr about my edit "editorializing the unknown". Thanks for this comment, my aim was to put in context the text about the Mediteranean diet and increased gluten levels in modern bread wheats. However, the best solution would be to delete this part altogether ("These include the increasing use of the Mediterranean diet, which ... the clinical significance of this, if any, is unknown."): it's all simply too hypothetical for Wikipedia. RAMRashan (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

RAMRashan: I believe the edit I removed was entered by BallenaBlanca shown here. The Health benefits section has become a soapbox, WP:SOAP, for BallenaBlanca to rail against gluten, whereas we should be discussing "benefits" and "concerns" of consuming wheat in a more concise way. The section could be abbreviated with no significant loss by deleting everything after the 3rd paragraph (perhaps retaining the 4th), with the following paragraphs detailing BallenaBlanca's mission against gluten. This is overkill on the gluten story, and seriously off the topic of wheat food and health value, in my opinion. There's already abundant discussion about gluten elsewhere at Wikipedia, all of it impacted by BallenaBlanca. --Zefr (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I think everything after the second paragraph could go. RAMRashan (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with that, but out of respect for the tough but good interaction that has occurred over the last week, and recognizing WP:CON, we should await the feedback from other editors. It would be useful to have input from Jytdog and Alexbrn, among others. --Zefr (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that the second paragraph should be removed. The Bressan-Kramer source is not reliable and pretty clearly fringe as Frontiers journals have been directly criticized for publishing fringe and pseudoscientific theories, not to mention predatory journal, practices, etc.

I'll also be honest that I haven't had the time to keep up with all the times or the new literature being introduced, so I can't comment on all the other changes going on recently very much yet. However, I also do have concerns about soapboxing and cherry-picked content that makes gluten sound much worse than the overall literature depicts it as. The kind of content being introduced lately is at odds with what has been discussed about gluten in the past, so it does seem like a WP:WEIGHT at the least. That gets into a mix of behavior and content issues though, so it might be worth bringing up at WP:MED yet [[23]]. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Frontiers journals shouldn't be used, except for mundane statements when better sources aren't available. Alexbrn (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay to remove Bressan-Kramer article, I agree, I will not object.

Also, I agree to remove content that is out of place on this page and keep it similar as it was on 10:32h, 30 November 2016 [24] [25] before the first interventions of RAMRashan and adding the health benefits. All my edits below were an attempt to balance the information he was adding and to answer this question from Doc James [26].

This edit of RAMRashan [27] included incomplete information about the gluten-free diet, which may to lead to misunderstandings, backed with this four poor not WP:MEDRS references: [28] [29] [30] [31].

In this other edit, [32] RAMRashan added information on the labeling of gluten-free foods (?).

Zefr reviewed next [33] and worded, but he kept all content added by RAMRashan about GFD and labeling, and the four no WP:MEDRS references. (I do not understand why this lack of rigor on this occasion, it is at least astonishing in this editor who always fiercely works to eliminate not WP:MEDRS sources...).

Although in my opinion, that information about the gluten-free diet and labeling was out of place on this page and is WP:OFFTOPIC, I respected Zefr's decision, but I did an edit to give it neutrality and MEDRS sources. [34]

I just made these edits removing content out of place [35] [36] [37]. I hope you agree.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I also wonder why no one of all experimented editors participating in this talk, who are reviewing in so much detail, removed this primary reference PMID 20664999, not WP:MEDRS and conclusions that do not fit the content, added by RAMRashan [38]. This lack of neutrality and rigor, or this "selective" rigor, is worrying. I just deleted them in this edit [39].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The van den Broeck et al article (PMID 20664999) ,was cited by Bressan-Kramer et al to support exaggerated health claims. I inserted the van den Broeck reference to make it transparent that the exaggerated claims were not supported. Of course the best for Wikipedia was to delete that whole section of text, which I subsequently suggested myself, when the opportunity presented itself.RAMRashan (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

RAMRashan, you must also see WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 14:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed original research isn't usually good for Wikipedia, bad reviews that distort the conclusions of original research much less so.

The word "toxic" and "toxin" that are inaccurate for gluten, and not helpful for understanding. If we use the word toxic for gluten, what words shall we use to describe raw casava root, or castor oil seeds? I don't think think any authorative medical or scientific society use "toxic" or "toxin" words in their definitions of gluten or coeliac disease. So Wikipedia shouldn't. Please post sources if I'm wrong.

For the meantime please leave my edits that remove "toxic" and toxin" and actually add a bit of detail about what the disease actually is from the World Gastroenterology Organization!

Please Zefr, Alexbrn, Kingofaces43, and other editors, please contribute again. This is very frustrating and wasting too much time. Perhaps we could hold a vote of editors as to if the word "toxin" or "toxic" should be used, and if so in what context. And a poll for suggestions for the form of words that introduce gluten and coeliac disease? RAMRashan (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth raising this again at WT:MED. On the face of it a push to describe gluten as toxic would appear highly problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I agree. I did it [40]. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Trimming the "Health benefits and concerns" section

Concerned about the current article's excessive discussion about gluten and consolidating the above conversations on this Talk page, I propose the following, with references remaining as currently in the article (noted as "ref"):

When eaten as the whole grain, wheat is a healthy food providing diverse health benefits. According to the American Heart Association: "Dietary fiber from whole grains, as part of an overall healthy diet, may help improve blood cholesterol levels, and lower risk of heart disease, stroke, obesity and type 2 diabetes"; also: "Dietary fiber can make you feel full, so you may eat fewer calories. Including whole grains in your diet plan may help you reach or manage a healthy weight."(ref) Further, wheat is a major source for natural and biofortified nutrient supplementation, including dietary fiber, protein and dietary minerals.(ref)

Gluten, a mixture of proteins present in wheat, rye, barley and their hybrids,(refs) may trigger coeliac disease in genetically predisposed individuals, affecting only 1-2% of the general population.(ref) Coeliac disease is a chronic, immunologically–determined form of enteropathy affecting the small intestine, having serious health consequences for people affected.(ref) While many cases remain undiagnosed and untreated,(refs) its only known effective treatment is a strict lifelong gluten-free diet.(ref)

While coeliac disease is caused by a reaction to wheat proteins, it is a different disorder from a wheat allergy.(ref)

Please comment. --Zefr (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It is more compact and better I think without the undue dwelling on the non-essential. I'd prefer the section were simply titled "Health effects". Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, that's a more neutral section title. Also with neutrality in mind, there are 7 references addressing gluten in the existing article and proposed revision, too many. I re-propose this section contain only 1-2 major sources about gluten and ask RAMRashan and BallenaBlanca for their suggestions. --Zefr (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Zefr and Alexbrn for your feedback. I agree on these three paragraphs, the renaming of the section to "Health effects" (or even to just "Health") and I agree on the need to reduce the references to 1-2 major sources.

The FDA site would be a very good site to consider http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Allergens/ucm111487.htm#intro

RAMRashan (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

With all my respect, this discussion is "surreal" to me. An editor, RAMRashan, wants to erase the term "toxic" [41] (which is used worldwide in this context for years -see [42] [43][44] [45]), because he does not like it and against Wikipedia policies (such as WP:NPOV , WP:MEDRS, etc.). Perhaps we are facing a WP:SPA or a WP:COI. And does Wikipedia have to follow his game?

In addition, Zefr wants to take this opportunity to remove content supported by WP:MEDRS references and include an inaccurate and outdated definition of CD (“determined form of enteropathy affecting the small intestine”). He says that is "Concerned about the current article's excessive discussion about gluten". What there is is an excesive push by RAMRashan to eliminate the term "toxic" and his lack of knowledge of most of the of Wikipedia policies. Really, this is at least surrealistic.

Perhaps the main problem is the significant discrepancy found in the use and thus definition of the term gluten. For the most part, except for a few instances very recently, in the medical literature gluten is commonly referred to as the protein in wheat, rye, barley, and (at least some varieties of) oats. Technically, however, gluten is a protein moiety found only in wheat grain, but like wheat, rye, barley and (at least some varieties of) oats also contain major plant storage proteins that are toxic for people with celiac disease. See Health Hazard Assessment for Gluten Exposure in Individuals with Celiac Disease: Determination of Tolerable Daily Intake Levels and Levels of Concern for Gluten (Office of Food Safety Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food and Drug Administration)

Oats are the best example to explain the need to talk about toxicity. When talking about oats, everywhere, there is always the mention of their possible toxicity in celiac disease. Two examples in two guidelines: World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines on Celiac Disease and American College of Gastroenterology - Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease.

And please, RAMRashan, don't edit the page, wait until we reach a consensus, we are still discussing about this [46]. Wikipedia is not composed by four editors. Let's see opinions from other editors as Doc James, McortNGHH, Jfdwolff, Hiperfelix, BullRangifer...

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

At the moment 3 editors Zefr, Alexbrn and myself are not favorable to using the words "toxic" or toxin", and you have failed to produce a single major medical or scientific society, or institution, who uses the word toxic or toxin in their definitions of gluten and celiac disease. Kingofaces43 also has concerns of Soapboxing and cherry picking, although I cann't remember a specific comment on toxic and toxin etc.

Wikipedia is not made of three/four editors, but, much less is it made of one. I suggest the section is changed to the three paragraphs Zefr posted. Although it doesn't have the toxic toxin that you want, I don't think anyone thinks it's wrong in any important way.

It could be good for Jytdog to have a look at this as well. Jytdog has given considerable thought to what type of references are good for Wikipedia.

Then we could wait a while to see what other editors have to say.

RAMRashan (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We should generally paraphrase rather than quote. Have done some of that in the statement in question.

IMO we should keep this sentence at least "Other diseases triggered by gluten consumption are non-coeliac gluten sensitivity,[65] (estimated in one study to affect the general population in a range from 0.5% to 13%),[66] gluten ataxia and dermatitis herpetiformis.[65]"

These details can be covered in the subarticle on the diseases themselves "Besides gluten, other proteins present in wheat and related grains named amylase trypsin inhibitors (ATIs), which are about 2–4% of the total protein in modern wheat, may induce an innate immune reaction leading to intestinal inflammation in people with coeliac disease or non-coeliac gluten sensitivity.[57][61][67]" which we mention in the paragraph above.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The 3-paragraph solution proposed above would concisely focus on the health effects of consuming wheat, as the section intends, while acknowledging the presence of gluten affecting a small percentage (1%) of consumers. It is not a matter so much about MEDRS as it is about content emphasis, which is currently over-weighted in gluten discussion, i.e., WP:UNDUE for an article on wheat. The FDA page about gluten is an excellent and balanced user-friendly description of gluten issues, does not mention "toxicity", correctly frames consideration of oats, and is presented for use by the general public, as this section in the Wheat article should be. --Zefr (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the adjustments made by Doc James [47] and his proposal. I will edit to trim it.

Zefr, this FDA page about gluten is an old, inaccurate, and outdated ref from January 2007, that defines celiac disease as "a chronic inflammatory disorder of the small intestine" but the knowledge has tremendously advanced and the definition has changed (e.g. World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines - Celiac disease April 2012 versus World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines - Celiac disease July 2016). Celiac disease is a chronic, multiple-organ autoimmune disease. Please, it has taken a lot of work and many years to reach this knowledge, and at least, respect it and do not continue to boycott it.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

While the FDA is a suitable source it is not the only suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the secondary sources that describe wheat as toxic to those with CD. Could somebody please give a link? I can see sources that examine the toxicity of oats to a small number of people with CD, but that's properly a topic for Coeliac disease #Other grains, where it is discussed, not for the wheat article. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

with regard to this dif - it is completely wrong to flatly describe gluten as "toxic" as was done in that diff. This is the product of policy-violating POV pushing and UNDUE editing and MUST STOP. We might as well describe water as "toxic" every time we mention it, since thousands and thousands of people have gotten brain damage and even died from exposure to water (called "drowning" by people in the real world). It is important to update content as refs update but this is fucked up editing that is going to blow up in your face and continue wasting everyone's time Ballena. knock it off Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, you misunderstand the FDA guideline process. The 2007 date was when it was first written, and the date at the bottom of the page – 9-15-2015 – is when it was last revised to be current and accountable to major scientific reviews, i.e., it summarizes scientific consensus per WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDORG. I read Doc James' statement about the last paragraph, "details can be covered in the subarticle on the diseases themselves", to be consistent with the goal of just 3 paragraphs with fewer gluten references. I am removing that content and revising the references so they are not so heavily weighted to gluten, still unjustifiably sourced in paragraphs 1-3 by 10 references when wheat health has just 2. --Zefr (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We do not need a {{details|Gluten}} tag as we link to gluten the normal way

People have celiac's and gluten triggers symptoms is better than saying glutten triggers celiacs IMO

Agree this paragraph "Wheat and related cereal grains contain antinutrients such as lectins. Both gliadin (a component of gluten) and wheat germ agglutinin (a lectin) may increase intestinal permeability and activate the immune system both in people with or without coeliac disease. Gliadin content, however, can be engineered to lower levels in biofortified wheats." does not belong under health effects. Immune system activation and intestinal permeability are not clinical health effects so trimmed.

Agree the "however" before gluten is not needed. I do not see the need to trim so many references.

Mentioning "dermatitis herpetiformis" IMO is useful.

References

- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we have more editors on board. It's a shame for so much time to wasted. I just wanted gluten and coeliac to be defined in the terms of a major medical assocation or the FDA or something authoritative. The paragraphs by Zefr were good and accurate. In contrast multiple versions have used the word "toxic" in the first mention of gluten and coeliac, but not "intestine" or "autoimmune". It seems like the agenda of BallenaBlanca is to scare, not to inform.

It's just not fair BallenaBlanca to say that anyone is boycotting. The problem is that BallenaBlanca is fixed on "toxic" (which no authority uses in a definition), and want to push fringe ideas about modern wheat varieties, but doesn't seem interested in defining properly the disease using accepted authoritative sources.

I support the last changes by Doc James 23:30, 3 December 2016‎. Thanks! RAMRashan (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr there is nothing wrong with three paragraphs of content. And no need for a one sentence paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, RexxS, maybe you have not read this [48] [49] Health Hazard Assessment for Gluten Exposure in Individuals with Celiac Disease: Determination of Tolerable Daily Intake Levels and Levels of Concern for Gluten (Office of Food Safety Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food and Drug Administration) “ …other toxic grains (i.e., rye, barley) associated with CD…” “A range of work conducted over many years has established that each of these subfractions (of gliadin) can be enterotoxic in sensitive individuals” etc.; and other messages and information in this page.

There are dozens of references that speak about the toxicity of gluten in celiac disease, that I was previously linked. Probably, this is one of the most outstanding: PMID 22313950 Spectrum of gluten-related disorders: consensus on new nomenclature and classification. "The high frequency and wide range of adverse reactions to gluten raise the question as to why this dietary protein is toxic for so many individuals in the world. "

If it is already a mistake to compare gluten toxicity in CD with an allergy or an intolerance, I have no words to define the comparison with water and drowning.

I feel like if we had to vote if the Earth is or is not round...

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No one will deny that gluten is harmful to people with CD or sensitivity. But the way you are treating gluten is starting to move firmly into FRINGE and PSCI territory. If gluten is "toxic" then so is water; both are harmless to almost every person on this planet today or who has ever walked around on this planet. Yes both are harmful to a small percentage of people (water, if you get too much; gluten if you have CD or sensitivity) Get out of your bubble, and stop looking at the world through gluten lenses. here you described gluten as a "toxin" in general terms and without qualification such as "in sensitive individuals"; do not do that. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Bah! The diff that you show is just one of the results of the multiple edits and the mess resulting from to be adjusting the continuous edits of RAMRashan. Anyway, is written in the context of the minority of people with celiac disease, which implies predisposed people: "is toxic for a small proportion of people, in whom it may trigger coeliac disease".

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I can see that the conclusions of Spectrum of gluten-related disorders do refer to toxicity several times. By the way, I thought that coeliac disease was generally considered a genetic condition, so people had it asymptomatically, and that gluten triggered the symptoms, not the disease. Or have I got that wrong? --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay lets get back to article content. Is the current version one people can live with? [50] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied. 70% of the content and 80% of the references in the section are about a topic affecting 1% of people = WP:UNDUE. I suggest the gluten discussion be represented by two sentences: 1) it's present in wheat and 2) it affects some people, to be sourced by one gluten/CD review and the FDA review. Other gluten discussion is for other articles. --Zefr (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, RexxS. I'll try to answer you.

Celiac disease is the only autoimmune disease in which the causative agent is known: gluten. Having genetic risk is a necessary but not sufficient condition (although approximately 1% of celiacs do not carry the known haplotypes HLA-DQ2 or HLA-DQ8, more genes have now been linked with CD, not yet applied to practice). Not everyone with genetic predisposition develops the disease. About 30% of the general population has one or more of these alleles, but only about 1-2% of these individuals develop celiac disease.

Most people with active disease do not have digestive symptoms or these are intermitent or mild, but have extra-digestive symptoms or associated disorders, which can affect any organ or tissue of the body. Also, there are asymptomatic CD people with intestinal injury, but the reality is that in the majority of the cases, once they start the gluten-free diet, they warn that their pre-diet quality of life was not really good.

Doc James, this sentence is confused: "is harmful for people with coeliac disease, in whom it may trigger symptoms". We have to word it, but I do not have more time now.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 03:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Zefr forgets, among other things, that the NCGS affects up to 13% of the general population. It's ironic that he pretends not to speak about gluten in the health section of the wheat page. What he ask would make sense if this were the page of the potato or the carrot or the lettuce..., for example. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 03:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I will edit to reformulate this sentence: "...is harmful for people with coeliac disease, in whom it may trigger symptoms." --> "...can trigger coeliac disease in genetically susceptible people." There is no need to include a new reference for this, is supported by the ref already present, which says "Exposure to certain grains or certain protein components of them can result in adverse health consequences, particularly the development of celiac disease (CD), in genetically predisposed individuals"

I hope that in this way, we can avoid misinterpretations, as has happened to RexxS [51].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I was pleased when Doc James started editing, and thanks for that, but at the end of the day I think Zefr's original three paragraphs were better, and now agree even more with Zefr's two sentence suggestion. Zefr's suggestions for reducing the references is also absolutely spot on: this is supposed to be an Encyclopedia with appropriate balance, not a review

In Doc James's version, the sentence about modern wheats having more gluten should definitely be removed, unless someone can show that it is accepted knowledge that this is clinically significant, which I don't think anyone can. At the moment the sentence is leading, and seems to be designed to induce the thought that "modern wheats are killing us!". I won't make that edit at the moment, but if no editor shows clinical significance is accepted knowledge, then it should be removed. RAMRashan (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree not needed and removed per your suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this edit by Doc James [52] but it seems that RAMRashan undid it by mistake [53] I will restore. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RAMRashan, the problem with this sentence is that after all the edits motivated by your push to eliminate the mention of gluten toxicity in CD, now it is not exact and has been out of context.

About the elimination of "toxic" in this sentence: also contain greater amounts of toxic gluten peptides, as I said, Ref says: "new types of wheat with a higher amount of toxic gluten peptides". Not all peptides in gluten are toxic. It is not the same to contain more gluten than the gluten contains higher amounts of toxic peptides. To make sense, we have to be precise.

About the context, let's see what the reference says [54]:

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: questions still to be answered despite increasing awareness

Growing evidence indicates that a marked increase in gluten-related disorders has been observed in recent years.1,2 Many factors have contributed to the development of gluten-related pathology, starting with the worldwide spread of the Mediterranean diet, which is based on a high intake of gluten-containing foods. In the Mediterranean area, the mean daily gluten consumption is particularly high (approximately 20 g and even higher in some countries).3 Moreover, the mechanization of farming and the growing industrial use of pesticides have favored the development of new types of wheat with a higher amount of toxic gluten peptides that cause the development of gluten-related disorders.4 In addition, bread and bakery products currently contain a higher quantity of gluten than in the past due to the reduced time of dough fermentation.5 It must also be noted that diagnostic tools for gluten-induced disorders, such as celiac disease and wheat allergy, have progressively improved.6,7

I do not agree to delete this sentence. Our mission is to provide information, not to decide what the reader will think (let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide).

Nevertheless, I have no problem moving this sentence to antoher place, but we have to adjust it. Well, I agree not to use the word "toxic". We can, instead, use immunogenic or cytotoxic or enterotoxic, any is valid: Gliadins content the immunogenic peptides that are able to exert a direct cytotoxic effect on the cell. “A range of work conducted over many years has established that each of these subfractions (of gliadin) can be enterotoxic in sensitive individuals” (both refs are already present in the page)

I suggest this sentence: "Modern wheat varieties which have become the most common, also contain greater amounts of immunogenic gluten peptides." or "...also contain greater amounts of cytotoxic gluten peptides." or "...also contain greater amounts of enterotoxic gluten peptides."

Thoughts?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca - no gluten peptides are toxic, that obvious conclusion has received overwhelming support from editors, so you arguments are baseless.

The title itself "questions still to be answered" says that this is not suitable for Wikipedia. It's not established knowledge. Speculation is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

The sentence must go!

or show that it's clinically significant with suitable authoratitive references!

I reiterate that Zefr's suggestion that two sentences and or one or two references are enough for this whole section of text about gluten and coeliac.

RAMRashan (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As an intermediate step, I moved the sentence about modern varieties and gluten to the Breeding section. It fits well in that seciton. If you are not trying to mislead the reader, you can not object "facts speak for themselves" RAMRashan (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

RAMRashan: Let's work on a draft. Others can comment. --Zefr (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Wheat contains gluten proteins that can trigger celiac disease in a small population of genetically susceptible people.(NIDDK) While celiac disease is caused by a reaction to wheat proteins, it is different from gluten sensitivity or wheat allergy.(NIDDK)[55]

That form of words is excellent RAMRashan (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Why say small population when 1-2% is much more specific? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The precise numbers for prevalence are inconsistent and potentially confusing. The incidence of CD is < 1% (1/141 actually = 0.7%) whereas with CD and NCGS combined, the number is 5.5%. Others have said as high as 13% combined. Again, as with the existing too-long, over-referenced section in the article, we're getting diverted toward specifics about gluten while trying to improve the information on wheat as a health food. --Zefr (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Have changed to about 1%. Some sources give higher and other gives lower estimates. This one says 1 to 2%. JAMA says 0.6 to 1%. Meh

You use a document based on a 2012 source and than call the 2012 source I present "out of date".

I guess we can make all changes going forwards based on RfCs if you would prefer.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I also think percentages are problematic, because there doesn't seem to be an accepted number. However, I'm also OK with the "about 1%" in Zefr's two sentences below. RAMRashan (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The only refs for gluten in the Health effects section I suggest are here (2016) and here (2015). No other content or references on gluten are necessary for the section, in my opinion per the draft offered above, so far uncommented or revised by you. --Zefr (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, RAMRashan, this is the most controversial point, please wait until reach a consensus [56]. And you have to adjust to the reference. Let's see Doc James opinion.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"no gluten peptides are toxic, that obvious conclusion has received overwhelming support from editors" Guauuuuuu!!!! The incredible power of Wikipedia! We have succeeded in eliminating the toxicity of gluten! Feast for all mankind! How do we now to eliminate the hundreds of medical literature articles that talks about the toxicity of gluten? --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)