![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Ancient grains appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Elijzell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Category:Ancient grains has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Siuenti ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The cited sources of Us.naturespath.com, ancientharvest.com, and The Whole Grains Council all appear to fail WP:RS, and, accordingly, should be removed.
Here are sources that do meet WP:RS and could be used for citations and/or to expand the article:
Also, I have significant doubts that cookbooks should be included in the "Further reading" section; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a guidebook or directory. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I arrived here from finding that the Category page for "Ancient Grains" which has already been deleted. I see that some "SuperEditor" wants to delete Ancient Grains. I advise against it, although I am no expert (or god forbid, I am not a supereditor) The argument for the deletion of the category seems to have hinged upon the assertion that the BBC had decided that Ancient Grains did not exist. I hyperjumped to the BBC.com article which allegedly proved that Ancient Grains did not exist, and found that no such contention had been advanced. Rather the BBC news author of the article stated simply that a comprehensive list of ancient grains did not exist ( http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30458761). The article went on to identify those ancient grains which are commonly grouped together. Nothing in the article denied the existence of Ancient Grains. I did a quick Google search and found scores of online authorities for the existence and growing popularity of ancient grains. I did an amazon search and found several books describing ancient grains and indeed incorporating ancient grains into the title (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Grains-Modern-Meals-Mediterranean/dp/1580083544; http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Ancient-Grains-Laura-McBride/dp/1484089685/ref=pd_sim_14_14?ie=UTF8&dpID=61UMtSQUg4L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&refRID=0TRAH4PKCQFDSSHBYX6P; http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Ancient-Grains-Delicious-Amaranth/dp/1440579563/ref=pd_sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&dpID=61G5IlmmcVL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR123%2C160_&refRID=1FM5CCQPNXCJ89M1N3ZK). A few moments of research leads me to the conclusion that ancient grains exist, are quite popular in the health food field and are a topic commonly used by regular people when they shop their natural foods stores or food co-ops ( http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/08/368689124/fringe-no-more-ancient-grains-will-soon-be-a-cheerios-variety; http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/what-the-heck-are-ancient-grains/; http://www.smartflourfoods.com/ancient-grains/;http://www.coreperformance.com/daily/nutrition/12-ancient-grains-you-may-have-never-tried.html). Before accepting the recommendation of a supereditor without familiarity with natural foods, route it by someone with appropriate expertise. Best wishes, a Wiki friend, LAWinans ( talk) 02:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think Ancient Grains are incredibly important and real. If it wasn't for ancient grains many civilizations and empires would not have existed. Historically speaking it was grains and humans ability to grow them that allowed for civilization and industrial progress to occur. Ancient Grains did exist and this page should be kept. Annieburkus ( talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Annieburkus
I've removed the mention of triticale from the article, as it's a fairly recent man-made hybrid of wheat and rye and, as such, certainly not an ancient grain, but where does rye fit into this scheme? Does it qualify as an ancient grain? Do any sources that discuss ancient grains make any mention of it? — Kpalion (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is wild rice considered an ancient grain? It appears to fit the definition. Should it be included in the article? -- Wavehunter ( talk) 11:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I am new to editing, so please let me know if anything I'm doing is incorrect.
I have boldly removed the following claim: "their [ancient grains'] health benefits over modern varieties have been disputed by some nutritionists" due to lack of evidence. Of the two sources listed, one (from the LA Times) is behind a paywall, and the other (from BBC) does not actually support this claim. The BBC article instead says that the term "ancient grains" is often used as a marketing tool to charge more for a product, and that such products may not actually be a healthy choice because they may contain lots of sugar, etc. This is accurate, but not the same thing as disputing the health benefits of ancient grains over modern varieties. As for the other article, I don't subscribe to the LA Times, so I can't check it, but I don't see any reason it should be an exception to WP:NFC.
I'm sure there ARE nutritionists who would make this claim, but the current sources aren't adequate to support it. A quick google search yielded several very reputable articles (for example, this one from Harvard Health, and this one from healthline, which links to a bunch of studies on the NIH website) that in fact suggest ancient grains DO have health benefits over modern grains. Of course, though, if anyone comes across a reputable source supporting the removed claim, please feel free to revert my change! Bajjer21 ( talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Ancient grains appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Elijzell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Category:Ancient grains has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Siuenti ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The cited sources of Us.naturespath.com, ancientharvest.com, and The Whole Grains Council all appear to fail WP:RS, and, accordingly, should be removed.
Here are sources that do meet WP:RS and could be used for citations and/or to expand the article:
Also, I have significant doubts that cookbooks should be included in the "Further reading" section; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a guidebook or directory. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I arrived here from finding that the Category page for "Ancient Grains" which has already been deleted. I see that some "SuperEditor" wants to delete Ancient Grains. I advise against it, although I am no expert (or god forbid, I am not a supereditor) The argument for the deletion of the category seems to have hinged upon the assertion that the BBC had decided that Ancient Grains did not exist. I hyperjumped to the BBC.com article which allegedly proved that Ancient Grains did not exist, and found that no such contention had been advanced. Rather the BBC news author of the article stated simply that a comprehensive list of ancient grains did not exist ( http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30458761). The article went on to identify those ancient grains which are commonly grouped together. Nothing in the article denied the existence of Ancient Grains. I did a quick Google search and found scores of online authorities for the existence and growing popularity of ancient grains. I did an amazon search and found several books describing ancient grains and indeed incorporating ancient grains into the title (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Grains-Modern-Meals-Mediterranean/dp/1580083544; http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Ancient-Grains-Laura-McBride/dp/1484089685/ref=pd_sim_14_14?ie=UTF8&dpID=61UMtSQUg4L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&refRID=0TRAH4PKCQFDSSHBYX6P; http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Ancient-Grains-Delicious-Amaranth/dp/1440579563/ref=pd_sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&dpID=61G5IlmmcVL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR123%2C160_&refRID=1FM5CCQPNXCJ89M1N3ZK). A few moments of research leads me to the conclusion that ancient grains exist, are quite popular in the health food field and are a topic commonly used by regular people when they shop their natural foods stores or food co-ops ( http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/08/368689124/fringe-no-more-ancient-grains-will-soon-be-a-cheerios-variety; http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/what-the-heck-are-ancient-grains/; http://www.smartflourfoods.com/ancient-grains/;http://www.coreperformance.com/daily/nutrition/12-ancient-grains-you-may-have-never-tried.html). Before accepting the recommendation of a supereditor without familiarity with natural foods, route it by someone with appropriate expertise. Best wishes, a Wiki friend, LAWinans ( talk) 02:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think Ancient Grains are incredibly important and real. If it wasn't for ancient grains many civilizations and empires would not have existed. Historically speaking it was grains and humans ability to grow them that allowed for civilization and industrial progress to occur. Ancient Grains did exist and this page should be kept. Annieburkus ( talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Annieburkus
I've removed the mention of triticale from the article, as it's a fairly recent man-made hybrid of wheat and rye and, as such, certainly not an ancient grain, but where does rye fit into this scheme? Does it qualify as an ancient grain? Do any sources that discuss ancient grains make any mention of it? — Kpalion (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is wild rice considered an ancient grain? It appears to fit the definition. Should it be included in the article? -- Wavehunter ( talk) 11:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I am new to editing, so please let me know if anything I'm doing is incorrect.
I have boldly removed the following claim: "their [ancient grains'] health benefits over modern varieties have been disputed by some nutritionists" due to lack of evidence. Of the two sources listed, one (from the LA Times) is behind a paywall, and the other (from BBC) does not actually support this claim. The BBC article instead says that the term "ancient grains" is often used as a marketing tool to charge more for a product, and that such products may not actually be a healthy choice because they may contain lots of sugar, etc. This is accurate, but not the same thing as disputing the health benefits of ancient grains over modern varieties. As for the other article, I don't subscribe to the LA Times, so I can't check it, but I don't see any reason it should be an exception to WP:NFC.
I'm sure there ARE nutritionists who would make this claim, but the current sources aren't adequate to support it. A quick google search yielded several very reputable articles (for example, this one from Harvard Health, and this one from healthline, which links to a bunch of studies on the NIH website) that in fact suggest ancient grains DO have health benefits over modern grains. Of course, though, if anyone comes across a reputable source supporting the removed claim, please feel free to revert my change! Bajjer21 ( talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)