Talk:Gluten-free diet

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmantione11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Arthritis source question

Hi @BallenaBlanca: I was wondering if you could tell me why a magazine article by a doctor didn't qualify as a reliable source. I read the link you provided, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), but I don't really see where the source I included, which relates to rheumatoid arthritis and gluten, doesn't meet the requirements. I wasn't sure where to ask you about this either, so I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask this question.

Thank you for your help! M.Renae (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@M.Renae: We need secondary sources, published in rigorous scientific journals (peer reviewed) and your source does not meet these criteria. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: The source I listed is a secondary source that references medical studies. Also, not all the sources used for this article are peer-reviewed scientific journals. These two websites were listed (source 57 and 69) but they don't seem any more reputable than the source I listed, which was written by a doctor and published in a magazine. http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/nutrition/nutrition-tips/what-are-the-benefits-of-going-gluten-freer/news-story/c095d8c38230d6454ed73a60eb321006 and https://www.verywell.com/gluten-free-diet-side-effects-562712.

You are right. These two sources are not WP:MEDRS. Thanks for the advice. I will replace them. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I did it [1]. Best. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gluten-free diet. 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/20160305013411/https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedfiles/legislation/consultations/info_270204.pdf to https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedfiles/legislation/consultations/info_270204.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Value of gluten/gluten sources?

Confused about this bit:

Gluten proteins have low nutritional and biological value, and the grains that contain gluten are not essential in the human diet.

The given source does seem to state the former, though it is made very clear that it is an indispensible baking tool; typical discourse on gluten states these two things, so that part's fine. It also does have a quip about wheat being "often considered no more than a source of calories", though it goes into detail about the details beyond that, then begins to talk about ancient wheats that may solve the problem presented in the article. However, your own article on wheat states that it is a health food as well as a natural source of gluten, which is certainly at odds with the second half of the above quote. Wheat is "essential" in that it has been a staple food for thousands of years, for which it is very difficult to find a replacement. Numerous foods could be reduced to "non-essential" if you were to go crazy trying to find replacements for them, and eventually you end up at Soylent or something (I'm not even snowballing, that's how Soylent was created). Your gluten-free diet article right here goes into detail about replacing wheat being difficult and dangerous, which also seems to be directly at odds with the quoted statement.

That is to say, I'm confused about the message Wikipedia is presenting with this particular sentence. Despatche (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Importance of gluten in the diet

I read with surprise the assertion that Gluten has a low nutritional and biological value! I checked the reference to find that it states the exact opposite, I can't understand how this inaccuracy crept in, please read the referenced document carefully. I replaced the statement with a quotation from the document.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942718/

In section 1 we read : The nutritional importance of wheat proteins should not be underestimated, particularly in less developed countries where bread, noodles and other products (e.g., bulgur, couscous) may represent substantial diet components.

In section 6.1 we read : Despite its relatively low protein content (usually 8%–15%), wheat still provides as much protein for human and livestock nutrition as the total soybean crop.

These statements alone show quite clearly that Wheat proteins are of important nutritional value, notwithstanding that a small minority of individuals exhibit an intolerance.

81.155.139.35 (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were a literal copy and violated WP:COPYVIO. It is a sufficient reason to revert.

In addition, modified a literal quote.

And also, were out of context and deleted correctly referenced information, which is not a good practice.

This page is about diet as a treatment. From a biological point of view, no human being falls ill or dies because they do not eat gluten, but they do get sick or die if their body does not tolerate these proteins. In this case, it does not matter whether or not it is a good source of (some) proteins.

A different issue, outside the scope of treatment, is the access in less developed countries to valid sources of protein or that are more or less useful to facilitate the work of the food industries.

So I reworded and moved your contribution to a more appropriate section.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Gluten free compliance

I'm concerned about this sentence: People with poor basic education and understanding of gluten-free diet often believe that they are strictly following the diet, but are making regular errors. This is a rather condescending statement. I believe that it is not always the fault of poor education and understanding, but rather that cross-contamination and mislabeling is a major issue. Techwriter789 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence can just be removed entirely. The references make just as much sense on the previous sentence, without turning the whole thing into a patronizing mess. Nimlhûg (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)