Talk:Khorasan wheat

"It is produced and distributed by Kamut International Ltd."

September 14, Wednesday, 2011, Someone had put "It is produced and distributed by Kamut International Ltd." in the first line of the article. This is clearly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.135.20 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

February 4, Monday, 2019 It is my understanding that the registered name "Kamut" refers to the Khorasan Wheat varietal Q-77 and that there are other varietal forms available. I would refer any interest to https://memim.com/khorasan-wheat.html Please excuse any errors in text or protocol as this is my first attempt at editing a talk page. Thorisbc (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Poor Information

I came here because I saw a reference to Kamut pasta, googled it, and got pointed here. This is nothing more than an ad. Why is it on Wikipedia? It'a precisely the sort of thing that makes a mockery of the wikipedia concept.

References

There need not be three of the same reference in the reference section. Just use one and use the same number when referencing in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.214.222 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cooking Time

I have cooked kamut hundreds of times, and it doesn't require hours of simmering. It requires about an hour here in Denver, and probably less in lower altitudes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.211.74 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Tree of Life

This page should incorporate a Cultivar infobox, as per the Tree of Life Project. I feel obliged to do so, given that this particular cultivar is grown in my hometown... ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 06:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian origin

I don't have an opinion on kamut's origin, and am not sure what the evidence is, however this statement in the text is a miscarriage of logic: "However, this cannot be the case, as ancient Egyptians grew only emmer wheat,"

If the only wheat we have evidence of ancient Egyptians growing is emmer wheat, this does not by any means prove that they did not also grow (perhaps rather less commonly, leaving less evidence) other wheats. You can state the the lack of evidence for other wheats casts doubt on the tomb idea, however you cannot claim a "cannot". I'm going to revise the text accordingly.--Ericjs (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Your new wording is better. -kotra (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

trying to delete adcopy stuff

Did my best, but still kinda reads like an ad. There are many websites that mention Kamut, but they are all regurgitations from the Kamut Association of North America (KANA) sales lit. As such, since there is apparently only one source of info and I could not find 3rd party (outside of the USDA certification) verification, I think it should be deleted and replaced with a redir to the wheat article. Jerry guru (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunately a little adverty but I do think there's enough scholarly articles in the references and external links to say it's notable. It's most definitely a likely search term and the information provided in the article is useful if not entirely from a neutral POV. Redirecting to the wheat article would lose this information (too general for someone looking for what Kamut is). However, as Kamut is essentially a trademarked cultivar of Khorasan wheat, the article could be rewritten from the Khorasan wheat perspective (perhaps we can find more sources using that term) with a small section on the Kamut commercial product.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I just found this page trying to find out what it was and looked at the talk as the page was v. adverty. Valuable page, could do with more neutral writing 212.219.242.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Is this article about the company, or about the brand of wheat? The Interior(Talk) 00:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article reads like an ad. The first thing that should be done is to move it to "Khorasan wheat" and stick the Kamut trademark somewhere low down in the text; otherwise the "rich and nutty" etc. just looks like a Wikipedia-sponsored "Buy KAMUT!" page. Languagehat (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that seems best, will do this now. Justinc (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, first attempt at kicking the article into shape. Justinc (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Having read a mention of kamut on a recipe page, and never having heard of it, I naturally turned ot Wikipedia. The page as it now is is useful, and didn't read (to me) like ad copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.2.22 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs rewrite, Original Research as well as Ad style Writing

Considering that there are no citations for it's health claims, and that it says that it provides more "healthy" energy because of Complex Carbohydrates (according to the much better Carbohydrate article, studies indicate no difference in the "healthiness" or length of time energy can be provided by Simple vs Complex Carbs), the Health section should be ignored when reading, it's likely incorrect or exaggerated. This article really needs a rewrite, with some sources independent of the producer of Kamut grain. LiamSP (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete Vote

I would vote for deletion and rewrite based on non-commercial sources. At most this article should state that it is a trademarked name for a wheat variety. This is pretty sad. 75.72.127.125 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you can find kamut almost anywhere in north america. It's a specialty but it's very well established, definitely notable. I see more kamut in stores than millet at this point. 67.193.252.166 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong link

This page linked to the wrong page on Russian Wikipedia. Can you change that? It is linked to the article about Spelt, not Khorasan wheat. 76.102.94.129 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Luba

Info that needs sources

• Some people who have wheat allergy, and thus avoid wheat, are able to eat some forms of khorasan wheat.

–Temporal User (Talk) 07:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

the problem is the Kamut brand appears to be the sole distributor

I don't think there's any way around this, Kamut is basically the sole provider of this grain commercially. I think trying to avoid sources that mention it or 'promote' it just isn't practical, but as long as those sources are backed up by another research source, they are probably ok.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended and changed article about Khorasan wheat

November 20, Wednesday, 2013:

We are two students attending a course about "alternative crops". One of the aims of the course is to create/extend/change a Wikipedia-article about a chosen alternative crop in groups. Me and my colleague have chosen Khorasan wheat. Therefore we did some research to find more information about the nutritional and especially the agronomic aspects of the crop (the latter was quite a challenge, because of lacking literature on that). In the end our goal is to have the whole article more complete. A first part (the agronomic one) is now already uploaded. We'd like to here your feedback about it. Please just tell if something is still missing or any added information is false or just inappropriate. Thanks a lot.

November 21, Thursday, 2013:

I am going to upload a new version of the systematic, the history, the yield, the distribution and the nutritional aspects. This version includes what was already on the page. In order to have a more inclusive article, it has been included in the different new sections. Please let us know if you have some comments or remarks!

Some comments: About talk-page contributions: we add these at the end, and there should be a "new section" tab that you can click to do that easily. If you type four tildes at the end of your comments on the talk page, a signature and date will be inserted that's quite helpful for others reading the material (one doesn't sign changes on the page itself, of course).

About the changes to the page: I haven't looked at it very much yet. The taxonomy section is now hard to understand. One problem is the use of a species name and a subspecies name interchangeably, which is real biology, not something to expunge from the page (see the first paragraph of Durum, for an example of how that is made clear). There needs to be a citation for the tetraploid statement (whether it is a species or subspecies is not necessary in that statement, you can just say that it is tetraploid).

"The taxonomic classification of Khorasan wheat has long been controversial. The correct subspecies has been disputed" That's not (usually) how biologists work. Rather, subsequent work refines earlier work, and biologists can decide for themselves whether it is best to consider this type of wheat as a subspecies or a full species, it is just a slight difference of opinion. It is therefore not reasonable to say that controversy exists and pit a 1959 article against one from 2012. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The "aspects of breeding" section has problems. The polyploid wheat species originated spontaneously (probably in cultivation) thousands of years ago. (Bread wheat is a polyploid derivative of durum wheat and a goat grass. As such it contains only a portion of the genetic variability of the parent species, and "synthetic wheats" have been produced by inducing polyploidy in modern crosses with a view to introducing useful traits into the bread wheat gene pool. If I recall correctly, this is not possible for durum wheats, as one of the parents is extinct, so introducing traits from other species into durum wheats requires more time consuming techniques such as repeated backcrossing.) Lavateraguy (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

German not in the Languages sidebar

The top section says it can be fixed by translations from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khorasan-Weizen which doesn't appear in the Languages sidebar, and when I tried to add it there, I got an error about it already being on http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15646801 . I'm lost, could someone who knows how fix this? --71.204.167.229 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khorasan wheat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115112629/http://grainplacefoods.com/products-and-services/whole-grains-and-seeds/kamut/ to http://grainplacefoods.com/products-and-services/whole-grains-and-seeds/kamut/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Archive link is ok but the source is a commercial site, spam, so I will remove it. --Zefr (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Brand vs. common name

This revert of the brand name is justified because there is no evidence that "kamut" is always used in science as a registered name (brand), but rather is a common name not needing to be capitalized or shown with the registration mark, Kamut®. As for many plant foods, it is reasonable to identify common names in the article, but brand names are commercially-motivated, and so are WP:PROMO. Also see MOS:TMRULES which indicates a registration mark should not be used. Zefr (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)