Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rice: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:52, 9 June 2007 editMadmanBot (talk | contribs)67,844 editsm Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Cleanup project← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:30, 16 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors61,070 edits Undid revision 1263356249 by 2603:6010:f0f0:9f00:732b:c783:3d44:d57d (talk): rm bizarreTag: Undo 
(456 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Talk header|search=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=GA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{WikiProject Plants|class=GA|importance=High|nested=yes}}
|action1=GAN
{{WP India|tamilnadu=yes|nested=yes}}
|action1date=22:32, 18 April 2006
{{WPCHINA|class=GA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
|action1result=listed
}}
|action1oldid=49034151
{{GA}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Everydaylife|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
{{WPCD-plants}}


|action2=GAR
==This article is probably a stub. OR what ?==
|action2date=18:22, 27 November 2007
|action2link=Talk:Science/Archive 1#GA Sweeps (on hold)
|action2result=delisted
|action2oldid=174174320


|action3=GAN
This article is probably a stub. OR what ?
|action3date=19:55, 4 January 2024
According to the pictures (and the text) rice cultivation is a folkloric antique crop who deserves less attention than some TV entertainments . Nothing appears about mecanization , combines, pesticides, fertilizers...used in a lot of countries from Japan to India, Italy, USA...
|action3link=Talk:Rice/GA1
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=1193599936


|currentstatus=GA
Who can write a real full article ? I cannot !
|topic=Agriculture, food and drink

}}
Fertilizing.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=High}}
IS that mentioned and if so how is it fertilized. Is there a history of Rice being fertilized by human sewage and have people got sick eating rice fertilized that way.
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}}
== History ==
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=Top}}

}}
History of cultivation should cover the rest of the world in more detail--] 04:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
{{Top 25 Report|Feb 26 2017 (23rd)}}{{Annual readership | days=365}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
== old ==
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 70K
so how old is white rice? is it a modern invention, or did the buddha eat white rice as well as brown? (aryuvedic traditions prefer white)
|counter = 6

|minthreadsleft = 3
== Washing ==
|minthreadstoarchive = 5

|algo = old(90d)
(page 5, top of the second column) claims that rice is often fortified with micronutrients on the outside of each grain, of which 20 to 1 percent will be lost if the grain is washed.
|archive = Talk:Rice/Archive %(counter)d

}}
] 22:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |minthreadsleft=4}}

: That document's gone now.
: Anway on the subject of '''washing'''... I was told by someone, who was told by an indian curry chef... that you should ''always'' wash rice before cooking it. In fact you should swill the rice around in the pan in water, then poor away that water, re-fill and repeat about 7 or 8 times! Clearly this is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination, but does it help? is it a good idea? Maybe it depends on the type of rice. Whenever I tried it, I noticed that lots of slimey white powderiness (starch?) was being washed away each time, which I guess could be a good thing. Means it'll be less stodgy right? Maybe I'll do a more scientific comparison some time, but anyway I was surprised to see no mention of washing the rice in the 'cooking' section ('soaking' the rice, means leaving it to sit in the water for a time, so that is a different thing). Can anyone offer a more experienced rice chef expert outlook on this? -- ] 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::I can't add much more than what you've already said, but I learned to cook basmati rice from a friend of mine and he claimed it needed three washings before being soaked. We've grown to love the rice and eat it often, and I always follow the washing instructions. The friend mentioned his dad was 'religous' about washing the rice and I had assumed he meant 'religous' literally --looks like I was wrong and it was only about taste and texture. --] 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Washing might help in removing some surface starch that is desireable in producing non-sticky rice dishes (such as Basmati). However, this is not desireable in ALL cases - for example, Japanese rice is enjoyed for it's slightly sticky texture and then there's glutinous (eg. sticky) rice and even risotto. In poorer countries, washing is/was a necessity due to food hygiene issues. The comment about washing being absolutely necessary is incorrect. ] 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

==Harvesting==

How is rice harvested? This needs to be included in the article.

==Weddings==
The throwing of rice at weddings should be mentioned.

== Brown or White Rice ==

Hey -- I'm new to wikipedia (well this part at least, not utilizing it), first off great respect goes out to your hard work. Very useful for freshing up on just about any topic. I think it would be good for this article to contain the benefits / comparision of brown rice versus white. Or maybe a link to an article that explains it. A general idea is represented here:


Also, from what I've gathered it is common thought (at least in northeastern USA) that white rice has been "bleached", and although people know it has less nutritional value, it's believed that the "bleachings" cause this, hence what I see as an incomplete understanding of the term "whole grain".

Once again, thank you,
Josh Goodwin
josh@crache.org

==Origin==

Where exactly did rice first originate? (I'd like to know which continent)

Rice originated in south east asia. the region includes eastern India, Thailand, Indonesia and south China. ] 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

== cooking & GABA ==

''When preparing brown rice, a nutritionally superior method of preparation known as GABA Rice or GBR may be used. This involves soaking washed brown rice for 20 hours in warm water (38 °C or 100 °F) prior to cooking it. This process stimulates germination, which activates various enzymes in the rice. By this method, a result of the United Nations Year of Rice, it is possible to obtain a more complete amino acid profile, including GABA.''

Needs minor rewrite. Keep rice soaking at 38 °C for all 20 hours? Or put rice in water that is 38 °C and leave it to soak for 20 hours? --]] 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fertilizing was that mentioned and in some places is it fertilized with human feces. That can cause people to get sick.

==Cleanup==
I tried to clean it up a bit, but I simply could not move all the pictures or table and have them all still on the page. The picture of rice plants at Kev Gardens, london, while a good picture, seems to be the one i would get rid of. I would also move the brown rice pic down to the "cultivars" section, and try to get all the pictures aligned on the right side so it wouldn't look so cluttered. But I can't figure it out, so I did nothing. Good luck :) ] 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:adjusted images in cultivation section. moved cultivar section above the nutriments section. and couple more small adjustments..bingo for now the article looks fine. So removing cleanup tag --] 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

===Etymology===
I have deleted the claim that the word "rice" coming from Tamil, and another paragraph that contradicted it. The claim was the sole contribution by 69.158.102.189. The paragraphs I deleted are as follows. ] 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:The word 'rice' understood to have originated from Tamil word 'aricee' that had gone into Greek first when Greeks were trading with Tamils in India before Christ period. The word later known to have come into English via French.
:
:According to ] and other scholars, the Tamil term for rice was derived from Sanskrit ''vrihi'', and not vice versa.<ref>{{cite book | first=Koenraad | last=Elst | authorlink=Koenraad Elst | title=Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate | publisher=Aditya Prakashan | year=1999 | id=ISBN 81-86471-77-4}} Section 1.6, </ref>

== Seasons of cultivation ==

During what seasons is rice cultivated or harvested? My impression was that this varies from one food crop to another (I'm an ignorant American, I wouldn't know) but I couldn't find this in the article. -- ] 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

- Please see ''']''' for details of your query. In many parts of Northeast Asia, rice is planted in the mid-spring, tended through the summer, and is harvested from September to October.
] 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Rice and malaria ==

'''I suggest including a section about "Rice and malaria"''' as wet rice-cultivation (so not dry rice-cultivation) helps the spread of malaria in regions with (or regions at risk of getting) malaria.
This is due to the fact that the mosquito that transfers the malaria-parasite needs (salt-less) water for its life cycle.

Is everyone OK by that ? Please note so here.
If approved we can add the section.

''Note: I don't have any sources as of yet''

] 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== 1st plant with genome sequenced ==

In the article, rice is refered as the first plant to have its genome completely mapped (2002). Yet, in the article about ] it is mentioned that this plant's genome was sequenced in 2000. There is also the reference in other languages that ''Arabidopsis thaliana'' represents the first plant with its genome mapped.
This should be further researched in order to maintain consistency.
] 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

==LLRICE 610==
Why is the collapse of American rice exports not appropriate to the rice page? (deleted without discussion) ] 12:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
*It is suitable for wikinews, not this article. Everytime some food scandal happens people add unsourced news items that are irrelevant to the actual topic and have to be cleaned up and removed at a later point. --] 12:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

== Misleading claim ==

This is a fine article but there is a shockingly misleading claim in here. This article seems to claim that a highly problematic and dubious 'one-off' archaeological find in Soro-ri, Korea may be the oldest rice in the world. Most trained archaeologists with field and academic experience doubt or reject the claims of the Soro-ri excavators. I would like to know if the person who has added the unfortunate bits about Soro-ri can answer these critical questions:

1) Does the BBC article that is presented as a 'reference' claim that the rice is associated with human occupation? ..No.

2) Does the Soro-ri Site excavation report (do you have it??) claim that the rice was found in association with features that indicate the humans were there?? For example, is this rice associated with a hearth, a house, stone tools, or anything like that? ...No, it is not. The answer is "no".

3) How do we know that the rice is 'the oldest in the world'? It seems to have been dated using absolute methods. Why haven't the excavators publicized the dates more effectively and widely so that we can see the error ranges and judge for ourselves?
Additionally, we need to know more about the circumstances of the excavation because assessing archaeological site formation processes can be tricky. How do we know that this rice grain was not transported by water or something else from another layer at the Soro-ri site? Why do the excavators offer no associated explanation of the circumstances of the unearthing of this single (?) rice grain?

4) Who proclaimed that this grain of rice was burnt or charred? Charring is key to understanding its age. Did professional archaeobotanists carry out this part of the Soro-ri excavation analysis? Hmmmm....something tells me no....

We are talking about a SINGLE (?) rice grain -- a 'one-off' find which may not be directly associated with human activity (!). Furthermore, this find raises many more questions than it provides answers. Key information on this site appears in the site report only -- a document published in Korean. Furthermore, the data presented in the site report may not really support the lofty claims made by the excavators. Importantly, I find it unacceptable that one rice grain of dubious origins and antiquity can trump the careful, systematic work of professional Korean archaeologists. Korean archaeologists are hard-working professionals and don't deserve to be bothered by this unfortnate issue -- this has gone far enough, folks. It is important to present a clear and cogent prehistory of Korea, just as it is to present a cogent history of rice. Let us not draw disrepute upon our houses in this way. I think that the Soro-ri find is one of the issues of which Misplaced Pages wants to steer clear.

I apologize to draw any undue suspicion upon this fine article, as I realize how hard that the authors have worked. However, I find the Soro-ri stuff quite upsetting, worrying, and unacceptable. Soro-ri could be worked into this article in a different way, but I wonder why the authors would want to highlight such a contentious find when the main purpose of this article is to EDUCATE readers.

] 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

so...we gonna actually do something about that sentence? ] 07:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

++Thanks for your response. I think it might be best to try and do something in compromise that suits everybody, including the excavators. The article is really informative and good the way it is, but it would be nice to mention that the Soro-ri finds are controversial because, other than the ''Science'' or ''Nature'' brief (forgot which one), critical details on the archaeological context are found only in the site report, of which only a small run were published in Korean.
Yet, there is no published criticism of the Soro-ri find, and so I think the reasonable thing to do ''might'' be to simply add something to the effect of

''"However, the media reports of the Soro-ri charred grains are brief and lack sufficient detail for us to properly evaluate the true meaning of this very unusual find".''

How about that...? Does anyone have other ideas? ^^


== Article contradicts its self ==
] 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


in the 3rd paragraph of the article introduction it says 'medium-grain rice is stickier, and is used for sweet dishes, and in Italy for risotto; and sticky short-grain rice is used in Japanese sushi as it keeps its shape when cooked.'
== Oryza glaberrima vs Oryza sativa ==


It says that risotto is medium grain, and sushi is short grain.
Oryza glaberrima is African rice that has a fairly different history from Oryza sativa, I think there should be a seperate article for Oryza sativa --] 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Under Food > Eating it says 'Short-grain rices include Italian Arborio rice for risotto. Medium-grain rices include Japanese sushi rice, which is slightly sticky.'
== Use of Jared Diamond appropriate? ==


It says that risotto is short grain, and that sushi is medium grain. ] (]) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I realize that Professor Diamond is extremely popular and accessible. He has written on a wide variety of topics and seems to claim a very broad expertise. Many enjoy reading his popular accounts of anthropological topics in their spare time.
However, I cringe every time I see Professor Jared Diamond being referenced in this article. Professor Diamond may have a few clever articles placed in accessible magazines, but I challenge his expertise on the topic of the origins of rice cultivation in China. This is not his life's work. He does other stuff well. I suggest that we replace the Professor Diamond citation(s) with an appropriate citation from an actual archaeologist-palaeoethnobotanist who reads ''Chinese'' and English fluently and has worked intensively on the topic. I'll get the appropriate citation and post it ASAP.
] 10:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


:: Fixed: rewrote the 'Eating qualities' section from a better source. ] (]) 11:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:Here's two references that I propose as per the above statement. I leave them here on the talk page first, and if nobody has any objections, I will add them to the article references soon:


== Lede ==
*Crawford, Gary W. Prehistoric Plant Domestication in East Asia. In ''The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective'', edited by C.W. Cowan and P.J. Watson, pp. 117-132. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1992.
*Crawford, Gary W. and Chen Shen. Origins of Rice Agriculture: Recent Progress in East Asia. ''Antiquity'' 72:858-866, 1998.
:--] 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, @], I did go through the body of the article before I started making cuts to the lede.
===update: history of cultivation===
i did some cleanup and added some new material as per my comments above. i also took the liberty to add subsections to the history section because it is fairly lengthy. ] 12:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


'''“Domesticated”'''
===Zohary & Hopf: one of Diamond's sources===
I intended to integrate information from Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf, ''Domestication of plants in the Old World'', third edition (Oxford: University Press, 2000, at pp. 90f ), but as this article is currently structured I don't see an easy way to do this. These facts are as follows:
* Zohary & Hopf divide rice into three groups: short grained "japonica" or "sinica" forms; long grained "indica"; & broad grained "javanica" forms. These are matched to the Asian regions of the Yangtze valley region of China, Ganges valley, and a less definite area in Indonesia.
* They date the earliest findspot of rice to Peng-tou-shan in the Hupei basin, dated by AMS radiocarbon tests to 6400-5800 BC; they date the earliest findspot in India to the 3rd millennium BC, & the number of finds increases in the 2nd millennium. It was introduced into the Near East in Hellenistic times (I believe Pliny the Elder mentions rice in book 17 of his ''Natural History''), and mention archeological find in Iran & Israel dated to Roman times.
* Oddly enough, Zohary & Hopf omit all mention of African species of rice, & assume that it was domesticated in Asia, & spread west from there.
Any easy way to resolve these discrepencies? -- ] 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


It is absolutely redundant to mention that the grain three billion people eat is the domesticated variety. Because obviously something that widespread would become domesticated. Not to say that talking about rice’s domestication is redudant. Just that the lede is not the place for superfluous details like that the most widely consumed crops is in fact domesticated.<small>edit made by User:Showerlemon 08:42, 2 June 2024 </small>
:Hi, it will be great to insert all of your points and include Zohary and Hopf 2000. I think you can insert much of the above text and integrate it with existing text without much difficulty. The dates for China that you mention will likely be outdone in the near future. For example we could do the following. There is the existing sentence:


: No, it's absolutely necessary to mention, right up front, that this is a major domesticated grain. Since Misplaced Pages articles are required to stand alone, it is right that a cereal article states in terms that the plant has been domesticated: readers must not be expected to navigate to another article (which isn't even named in your version!) in order to discover key facts. People eat a variety of wild and semi-wild cereals, and the first farmers ate only undomesticated crops for some thousands of years before the plants could be said to have been domesticated, so it's very far from redundant. And by the way, please sign your posts. ] (]) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:''Most of the Neolithic sites in China with finds of charred rice and radiocarbon dates are from 5000 B.C. or later (Crawford and Shen 1998). ''


=== Second sentence ===
I think we can alter this to:


In a similar vein, I don’t agree with you reverting back
:''One early findspot of rice from Pengtoushan in the Hupei basin was dated by AMS radiocarbon techniques to 6400-5800 BC (Zohary and Hopf 2000), but most of the Neolithic sites in China with finds of charred rice and radiocarbon dates are from 5000 B.C. or later (Crawford and Shen 1998).''
:How about that?
:Furthermore, the part about rice having three groups could be integrated into the Genetic History sub-subsection.
:I think that the reason why it may appear that there are discrepancies may be due to the sources that authors consult or don't consult when writing up their research *^^* . -- ] 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


{{blockquote|The seed of the grass species '']'' (Asian rice)—or, much less commonly, '']'' (African rice)—it was domesticated in ] some 13,500 to 8,200 years ago; African rice was domesticated in Africa about 3,000 years ago}}
:: Thanks for the suggestions, Mumun. Much of my concern was, although I consider Zohary & Hopf to be a reliable source, my puzzlement to proceed when I found their discussion of the material was clearly in variance with the material already in this article, & that I don't know enough about the subject to know whether this article provided a more thorough & complete discussion of the subject than their book -- or a less complete & lacunose one. (I'm sure you've noticed that some articles on Misplaced Pages are very uneven in how they cover their subject.) BTW, my intent in adding information from their book is not to impose some orthodox POV upon Misplaced Pages, but to move the relevant articles at least one more step towards FAC. So I'm in agreement with you on one point: I expect what I write to be redone as Wikipedians after me extend the reach of their research. I'll make the changes you suggest. -- ] 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


the “it” is talking about Asian rice since I put the part about African rice in its own subclause. I don’t think anyone would mix those two up from how I phrased it.<small>edit made by User:Showerlemon 08:42, 2 June 2024 </small>
==Upland rice response to soil nutrients in acidic soils of the tropics.==
There has been a request for an article on the above subject. Please see ]. (] 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC))


: People who have English as a second or third language can readily be confused by unclear wording, and even native speakers can stumble over poorly-written sentences. Our goal is to be as clear as possible, not to try to get away with as much as possible. ] (]) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
== Box: Top Paddy Rice Producers - 2005 ==


:check the origin of rice in "Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice 2004"
This box omits figures from two of the largest rice producers in the world: ] and ]. Furthermore, the external link associated with the box is broken. Perhaps there is a more inclusive figure available that has a stable link? ] 11:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:the oldest rices about 13,500 years ago samples were found at sorori of South Korea not China. ] (]) 23:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


:: Um, we go by recent, reliably-cited sources. The source in the History section is from 2022, and it states unequivocally that rice was domesticated in China, probably in the Yangtze valley. ] (]) 06:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
==Wet rice and dry rice cultivation==
Who, which ethno-linguistic group came up with each?


=== “the staple food” ===
'''There should be a new headline in the article''' noted as ==Wet rice and dry rice cultivation== which decribes the two types of cultivation, and it should be noted that
* - dry rice cultivation is'nt really dry; allot of irrigation is required here aswell
* - dry rice cultivation is mostly, if not all the time done by the slash and burn method; which clears forests first (triggering increased global warming and decline of biodiversity);


I took an issue with “the staple food”, because using the definite article gives the impression that people who eat rice ''only'' eat rice as their staple. It’s might be a personal thing, but I felt saying “a staple food” seemed clearer{{--}}since people eating rice, also probably eat a lot of other staples in their diets? Also has the benefit of, “Rice is a cereal and staple food…..”, sounding a lot sharper by virtue of being terser.
PS: I think that the reason why this is done is probably because places where forest where present could be already relatively moist, requiring less or no watering for the rice at all


: Terseness is not the goal; clarity is. You are totally allowed to have your own way of writing, but Misplaced Pages articles need to be written for a wide audience. The definite article is required in British English (and in Commonwealth English), so it's mandatory in this article. ] (]) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
* - dry rice cultivation frequently occures on hills


== Austronesian agriculture ==
Besides large scale plantation techniques (please include a link for general guidelines e.g. row spacing, plant density, ...), the (mostly small-scale) permaculture techniques should be included aswell.


That's the problem with splitting off articles and leaving inadequate summaries behind. See ]. &nbsp;<small>]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>]</small> 15:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Finally; a picture of both main techniques (dry & wet) and their small and large scale production method should be present


:The fact remains that ]. ]] 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Some links on these items:
::Then I shall add it.--&nbsp;<small>]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>]</small> 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


== "Highly undesirable repetition" ==
*


]
*
Any reason on why you're keeping it vague by just saying it was "domesticated in China", without saying who did the domestication? ] isn't the same thing as modern China. The fact that rice centers in the Neolithic are associated with these cultures are not in question. &nbsp;<small>]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>]</small> 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


: Um, we do not want to say that rice was domesticated in the Yangtze basin twice, which the article now does after your edits. You have been reverted by two other editors, which might take a bit of explaining. Further, since there is a "main" article which covers this section, we don't need to "keep a dog and bark ourselves" - that's the job of the other article. It'd be much appreciated if you could edit down the material you have copied-and-pasted (without attribution) to say the minimum of essential points just once. Many thanks. ] (]) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
== How is this a Tamil Article? ==


::I've merged it with the first sentence. I do not see the repetition with specifically identifying which Neolithic cultures did the domestication and where in the Yangtze. That's pretty important information. Just saying "domesticated in the Yangtze in China" does not give any detail at all, and misleadingly makes it seem like rice was a Sino-Tibetan domesticate. Isn't that the reason why you reverted my categorization earlier?
And can somebody give ref to the etymology? Its all confusing! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


:: with much more detail, before it was split off. I do not need to attribute myself.--&nbsp;<small>]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>]</small> 17:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)--&nbsp;<small>]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>]</small> 17:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
== History of rice cultivation in the US? ==


::: Thanks for the explanation, which would have come much better before you started reverting everyone and we could have reached a sensible consensus. Certainly the section needs to be brief: the longer, the worse is the maxim when there is a lengthy subsidiary article. ] (]) 17:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The article gives the impression that the end of slavery meant the end of large-scale rice cultivation, which "died out just after the turn of the 20th century." Yet a few paragraphs below that, it notes that the US is today one of the world's largest exporters of rice. This apparent contradiction cries out for clarification. Vast quantities of rice are cultivated each year in the US, which annually exports around four million tons--a century and a half after the end of slavery.


::::It's as brief as it can be, I think. Pretty much just saying who did it. Where. And where it spread and when.--&nbsp;<small>]</small><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:times new roman;">†</span><small>]</small> 17:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
== Etymology ==


::::: Many thanks. ] (]) 18:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The section on etymology is confusing. Tamil is not an Indo-Iranian language, it is Dravidian, so if all cited sources find the word to be Indo-Iranian, who are the people who "widely accept" the word to come from Tamil? The paragraph is making two contradictory claims, but the way the paragraph is written makes it seem that the sources cited support the first claim of a Tamil origin. In fact they argue against it. ] 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)LK

Latest revision as of 05:30, 16 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rice article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Good articleRice has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 27, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 4, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAgriculture High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPlants High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconFood and drink Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Article contradicts its self

in the 3rd paragraph of the article introduction it says 'medium-grain rice is stickier, and is used for sweet dishes, and in Italy for risotto; and sticky short-grain rice is used in Japanese sushi as it keeps its shape when cooked.'

It says that risotto is medium grain, and sushi is short grain.

Under Food > Eating it says 'Short-grain rices include Italian Arborio rice for risotto. Medium-grain rices include Japanese sushi rice, which is slightly sticky.'

It says that risotto is short grain, and that sushi is medium grain. 5.133.46.201 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed: rewrote the 'Eating qualities' section from a better source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Hi, @Chiswick Chap, I did go through the body of the article before I started making cuts to the lede.

“Domesticated”

It is absolutely redundant to mention that the grain three billion people eat is the domesticated variety. Because obviously something that widespread would become domesticated. Not to say that talking about rice’s domestication is redudant. Just that the lede is not the place for superfluous details like that the most widely consumed crops is in fact domesticated.edit made by User:Showerlemon 08:42, 2 June 2024

No, it's absolutely necessary to mention, right up front, that this is a major domesticated grain. Since Misplaced Pages articles are required to stand alone, it is right that a cereal article states in terms that the plant has been domesticated: readers must not be expected to navigate to another article (which isn't even named in your version!) in order to discover key facts. People eat a variety of wild and semi-wild cereals, and the first farmers ate only undomesticated crops for some thousands of years before the plants could be said to have been domesticated, so it's very far from redundant. And by the way, please sign your posts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Second sentence

In a similar vein, I don’t agree with you reverting back

The seed of the grass species Oryza sativa (Asian rice)—or, much less commonly, O. glaberrima (African rice)—it was domesticated in China some 13,500 to 8,200 years ago; African rice was domesticated in Africa about 3,000 years ago

the “it” is talking about Asian rice since I put the part about African rice in its own subclause. I don’t think anyone would mix those two up from how I phrased it.edit made by User:Showerlemon 08:42, 2 June 2024

People who have English as a second or third language can readily be confused by unclear wording, and even native speakers can stumble over poorly-written sentences. Our goal is to be as clear as possible, not to try to get away with as much as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
check the origin of rice in "Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice 2004"
the oldest rices about 13,500 years ago samples were found at sorori of South Korea not China. 165.229.105.239 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Um, we go by recent, reliably-cited sources. The source in the History section is from 2022, and it states unequivocally that rice was domesticated in China, probably in the Yangtze valley. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

“the staple food”

I took an issue with “the staple food”, because using the definite article gives the impression that people who eat rice only eat rice as their staple. It’s might be a personal thing, but I felt saying “a staple food” seemed clearer—since people eating rice, also probably eat a lot of other staples in their diets? Also has the benefit of, “Rice is a cereal and staple food…..”, sounding a lot sharper by virtue of being terser.

Terseness is not the goal; clarity is. You are totally allowed to have your own way of writing, but Misplaced Pages articles need to be written for a wide audience. The definite article is required in British English (and in Commonwealth English), so it's mandatory in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Austronesian agriculture

That's the problem with splitting off articles and leaving inadequate summaries behind. See History of rice cultivation.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact remains that articles must actually contain information that explicitly merits the categorization in question. Remsense诉 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Then I shall add it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Highly undesirable repetition"

Neolithic China

Any reason on why you're keeping it vague by just saying it was "domesticated in China", without saying who did the domestication? Neolithic China isn't the same thing as modern China. The fact that rice centers in the Neolithic are associated with these cultures are not in question.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, we do not want to say that rice was domesticated in the Yangtze basin twice, which the article now does after your edits. You have been reverted by two other editors, which might take a bit of explaining. Further, since there is a "main" article which covers this section, we don't need to "keep a dog and bark ourselves" - that's the job of the other article. It'd be much appreciated if you could edit down the material you have copied-and-pasted (without attribution) to say the minimum of essential points just once. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I've merged it with the first sentence. I do not see the repetition with specifically identifying which Neolithic cultures did the domestication and where in the Yangtze. That's pretty important information. Just saying "domesticated in the Yangtze in China" does not give any detail at all, and misleadingly makes it seem like rice was a Sino-Tibetan domesticate. Isn't that the reason why you reverted my categorization earlier?
I expanded this section a very long time ago with much more detail, before it was split off. I do not need to attribute myself.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, which would have come much better before you started reverting everyone and we could have reached a sensible consensus. Certainly the section needs to be brief: the longer, the worse is the maxim when there is a lengthy subsidiary article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
It's as brief as it can be, I think. Pretty much just saying who did it. Where. And where it spread and when.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories: