Talk:Spelt

Spelling

Spelt is also sometimes used in the English lanuage to denote the 'past tense' of spell (vis: He spelt it wrong.)

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.Methulah 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.99.251.230.51 (talk) 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. Gene Nygaard 12:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations - Spelt was featured in the 2006, January 11 edition of the Minneapolis/Saint Paul Star Tribune, in a what is spelt? link.

Thanks for this! Glad the page supports the FDA view.Mark Nesbitt 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 Blood type diet no problem]] and (b) there is no scientific evidence for the dietary specifics. See: [1] for blood-types and [2] 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. Mark Nesbitt 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 common wheat, and is not a suitable substitute for people with coeliac disease and wheat allergy. However, spelt is sometimes promoted as a alternative grain for sufferers from mild wheat intollerance.

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 Blood type diet. 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.

Any suggestions on how better to note that the mainstream disagrees with D'Adamo? The Rod 07:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC) While D'adamo's work is indeed tangential to this article I think you will find that his claims are in fact backed up by the most recent scientific findings. That is if you go to his work rather than the various secondhand versions of it on the net. He does use standard accepted referencing for the sources of his claims.

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 blood type diet 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 [wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/topics/] is transparently based on scientific literature and represents the mainstream medical and wheat science view. Mark Mark Nesbitt 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 apers0n 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia 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. Mark Nesbitt 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. --Brokenbones 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's considered acceptable in BrE I'm afraid. Liam Markham (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not only considered acceptable, but in most — if not all — versions of English outside the US it is considered the preferable past participle of the word 'spell'. The first comment in this thread just shows an ignorance to other variants of English outside the US. --124.180.168.76 (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material

The following italicised edit was removed from the Nutrition section as it was added without stating sources:

As it contains a moderate amount of gluten, it is suitable for baking bread with yeast, 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 kneaded for too long.

--apers0n 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

spelt products

I added the bit about Spelt pasta, it is becoming popular in specialty stores. Joezasada 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)"? --apers0n 09:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

--nope. I changed it to be less of an opinion statement. Joezasada 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. Bhudson 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.Mark Nesbitt 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 (whereas wheat becomes a sticky glutinous mass, similar to thick jam)."

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, 22 July 2008

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman and Chinese

Before removing this should be discussed - spelt was widely used in ancient China in amongst other things traditonal medicine. The practice of putting grain on the road to de husk is common still in my part of Southern China and in Vietnam. A television resource is acceptable as source material on Wikipedia - therefore this information shoud not be removed unless you have source material to negate it. Kunchan (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi - a TV programme that no-one else can see, and your opinion, are not verifiable sources for a subject on which there are scholarly publications available, according to Wikipedia's policy [[3]]. To quote "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

Verifiable sources regarding cereals cultivated in ancient/modern China: The standard work (in english) on agriculture in China does not mention spelt as cultivated there (Science and Civilisation in China: Agriculture by Joseph Needham, Francesca Bray - 1984). It is also absent from Food in China By Frederick J. Simoons (1991) - a standard work.

Verifiable sources regarding fire, Romans and spelt: there is a scholarly debate concerning the use of parching (ie. heating in an oven), but this would need to be far more precisely stated with reference to works such as Ancient Food Technology by Robert I. Curtis (2001) and (debunking parching) Meurers-Balke, J. and J. Lüning. 1992. Some aspects and experiments concerning the processing of glume wheats. Pp. 341-362 in Préhistoire de l'agriculture (P.C. Anderson,

ed.). Monographie du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques 6. Éditions du CNRS, Paris.

If you can rework your text so that it is based on verifiable sources, then I look forward to reviewing it. It would be a valuable contribution to have the Chinese medicinal literature reviewed on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknesbitt (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved this text to Talk pending verification "It is notoriously difficult to remove the husk from the grain. The ancient Romans would set the Spelt on fire, and the Chinese would lay it on the road and drive iron wheeled carts over it, in order to separate the grain from the husk. "Mark Nesbitt (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Wheat allergy

There is currently no evidence that those with wheat allergy can eat spelt. Moreover, there is poor evidence that a pathological wheat allergy, other than coeliac disease, exists other than extremely rare circumstances. Coeliac disease sufferers should not eat spelt. Newspaper articles and unrelated evidence should not be cited as truth. 86.136.48.90 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Suitability of illustrations

We often have the situation where there is no really appropriate illustration on Commons. Here, the illustration of a spelt loaf is definitely not appropriate for the kind of spelt loaves sold in England. It is obviously a much heavier and (looks like) malt-laden type of spelt, called Essene bread, made in Germany. I have dithered a bit between alternatives [[File:Sprouted grain spelt and chia bread.jpg]] and [[File:Speltbrood1134.jpg]], Neither is quite right for an English spelt loaf, but at any rate better than Essen bread. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? well what does this stuff look like ? I've heard it grows really tall and can't be harvested with a combine . Is that true ? What does it look like in the field ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erryphi (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Elaboration on revert and lost popularity

Zefr (talk · contribs), please explain this revert. Also, in the future immediate support of allegations of error on the talk page would be appreciated, as these types of actions without a clear basis harms our growth by damaging people's experience with Wikipedia. Disclosure: I helped a newbie make this as their first edit. Happy to swap it in for a different source if you have information which contradicts Don Stinchcomb. This is not the type of information we would expect to be documented in a scientific article, but perhaps in a trade magazine. II | (t - c) 04:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit didn't add improved information, but rather provided questionably sourced information compared to the previous version. WholeFoods is not a good WP:SECONDARY source because WF is selling a product and doesn't provide the specific source for a given comment -- better to research and use the WF article sources, rather than the article itself. Further, the edit was incorrectly written ("...lost popularity in part it has..." missing "because") and introduced an uncommon vague term - "free threshing" - which was confusing and unconstructive for the general user. Having an edit reverted should mean a better edit - content with solid source - is needed. --Zefr (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Health food

It's fairly common knowledge spelt has a reputation as a health food and this is indeed mentioned twice in the article, however, I can find nothing about why it is a health food and if there is any scientific basis for this claim. Based on this (see reference) article it seems the claims are mostly not true, only since it's, so far, less popular than normal wheat it has been less cultivated and because of that it contains more protein compared to normal modern wheat. Does anyone have an English sourced reliable article as reference? NicoLaan (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Plants of the World Online disagrees

POWO is a definitive source for plant names. They say it is Triticum aestivum subsp. spelta. That name must be included if WP is not to appear out of date. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)