Talk:Rice

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)