| Revision as of 18:41, 22 July 2008 edit71.229.1.87 (talk) Spelt as chewing gum← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:38, 3 January 2025 edit undoChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,188 edits GAN |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{GA nominee|19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Agriculture, food and drink|status=|note=|shortdesc=Species of wheat}} |
|
{{WPFarm}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Plants|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Spelt is also sometimes used in the English lanuage to denote the 'past tense' of spell (vis: He spelt it wrong.) |
|
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
:I agree. Just my opinion, I don't think that takes more than your mention here. |
|
|
:It's an incorrect usage. It should be mentioned in the article.] 06:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::"It's an incorrect usage"- Wrong. American English is not the only way of spelling words (even if your spell-checker assumes otherwise). ''Spelled'' is American, ''spelt'' is British, simple as that. And I don't believe it needs mention in the article, since there is an article on English spelling variants anyway.] (]) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:This spelt (wheat) is often called speltz or spelts in English. I think that redirect entries should be entered for them. If someone agrees, maybe they could be added. Or if you disagree, discuss it. ] 12:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations - ] was featured in the ], ] edition of the ]/] ], in a link. |
|
|
:Thanks for this! Glad the page supports the FDA view.] 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
== type== |
|
|
Hi - I removed the reference to blood-types and wheat as (a) a paragraph on this alternative therapy is not appropriate to this page (could go to ] no problem]] and (b) there is no scientific evidence for the dietary specifics. See: |
|
|
for blood-types and |
|
|
for why spelt is absolutely not suitable for coeliac sufferers. If you'd like to return to this topic, I propose we discuss it here on the talk page first. ] 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Spelt is one of the few grains substituted for wheat by some people with wheat intollerance, so at least some of the removed content certainly seems relevant for this article. Although spelt is not a suitable substitute for those with a true wheat allergy or celiac disease, it is tollerated by some people with wheat intollerance. I will try to find a reference for that claim, but in the meantime, I suggest the following content as NPOV: |
|
|
::Spelt is closely related to ], and is not a suitable substitute for people with ] and wheat allergy. However, spelt is sometimes promoted as a alternative grain for sufferers from mild wheat intollerance.<ref><cite style="font-style:normal;">] error: Parameters '''url''' and '''title''' must be specified Peter D'Adamo. . URL accessed on ], ].</cite></ref> |
|
|
:Also, Peter D'Adamo is not considered mainstream, so views should only be represented as a minority POV. However, since the ''spelt'' article is not excessively long, and since one of the main reasons for promoting spelt is the wheat intollerance recommendations, a sourced explanation of his spelt recommendation seems appropriate in this article, e.g.: |
|
|
::Since spelt does not contain the dietary lectin wheat germ agglutinin found in common wheat, Peter D'Adamo controversially recommends spelt as an alternative to wheat as part of his ]. Observing that WGA binds with antigen receptors particularly strongly on red blood cells of blood type O, D'Adamo claims that the immune system aglutinates and eliminates those bound red blood cells. He thus advocates that persons with Type O blood consume spelt and rice products instead of common wheat.<ref><cite style="font-style:normal" id="Reference-D'Adamo-2001">D'Adamo, Peter (2001). "Digestive Integrity" ''Live Right 4 Your Type'', 383, G.P. Putnam's Sons, Penguin Putnam Inc..</cite></ref> |
|
|
<div style="margin-left:2em;"><references/></div> |
|
|
:Any suggestions on how better to note that the mainstream disagrees with D'Adamo? ] 07:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi - thanks for this. The first para looks fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Regarding D'Adamo's work, ''if'' spelt is absolutely central to his system, then it probably would be worth adding a paragraph. If spelt is not central, then D'Adamo's work doesn't rate a mention otherwise a similar paragraph would be needed for every Wiki entry for foods that he mentions. Why single out spelt? Spelt has been around for 5000 years and has a fascinating history - in that context, D'Adamo's work seems very tangential. Although the entry is short, that's partly because it's quite new, and it's partly because many core aspects of wheat are covered in other pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
::All this is in the context of Wiki's aim to be authoritative rather than a compendium. D'Adamo's work is not grounded in scientific research and can't be supported by '''scientific''' references. The ] entry makes that clear. A huge amount of nonsense (ideas not supported by scientific research) is published on the web about spelt, especially in relation to wheat allergies. It's all the more imore important to be authoritative in this article. Don Kasarda's work at USA is transparently based on scientific literature and represents the mainstream medical and wheat science view. Mark ] 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Marknesbitt said "a similar paragraph would be needed for every Wiki entry for foods that he mentions" |
|
|
::: I think that's a great idea, perhaps even start a D'Adamo Typebase template ] 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a guide to fringe diets or a cook book. The place for more info on the D'Adamo diet is surely the D'Adamo wikipedia page. That helps each page keep a focus, rather than being a compendium. ] 10:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== spelt == |
|
|
|
|
|
To use the the word 'spelt' in the following sentence is '''NOT''' proper usage in the English language: He ''spelt'' it wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)brokenbones |
|
|
|
|
|
It's considered acceptable in BrE I'm afraid. ] (]) 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing unsourced material == |
|
|
|
|
|
The following italicised edit was removed from the Nutrition section as it was added without stating sources: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>As it contains a moderate amount of ], it is suitable for ] ''] with ], although, as it has less gluten than wheat, it gives a less successful rise to the loaf. The gluten in spelt is also more fragile than in wheat, which means that the dough may collapse if ] for too long.''</blockquote> |
|
|
--] 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== spelt products == |
|
|
I added the bit about Spelt pasta, it is becoming popular in specialty stores. ] 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Can you give some evidence for the statement "is almost always of high quality (probably due to the limited production)"? --] 09:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
--nope. I changed it to be less of an opinion statement. ] 19:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spelt origins == |
|
|
|
|
|
The "Evolution" section says that spelt is the ancestor to bread wheat. The "Early history" says that spelt is a hybrid of bread wheat and emmer wheat. One of those two must be wrong. ] 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Have had a go at making the story clearer. Spelt must have been an ancestor of bread wheat, but bread wheat could (and likely was) an ancestor of the European form of spelt several thousand years later.] 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Products == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Products section states: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The raw grain when chewed releases trace amounts of gluten giving the mass a slight resilience, not unlike gum{{Fact|date=February 2007}} (whereas wheat becomes a sticky glutinous mass, similar to thick jam).{{Fact|date=February 2007}}" |
|
|
|
|
|
I have chewed both wheat and spelt and they turn into a chewing gum that last as long as you want to chew it; it is like regular chewing gum but not quite as sticky. Spelt is softer than wheat but both are hard and may need a little soaking in the mouth or in water to facilitate chewing. At first it is a little mealy but it gradually turns into chewing gum. What kind of citation do you want? Try it and see for yourself or you can cite me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dab295 |
|
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
