Talk:Amaranth/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Same plant?

Are we saying that a plant used by the pre-contact Aztecs, the ancient Greeks and in India is the same plant? Rmhermen 13:38, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

The details elude me, but I remember this from a school geography class in '98. There have been many instances when the fossil of a species of a plant or animal have been found on many, and distant, continents. Like, exact same species. Then someone figured out that there used to be one super-continent, Pangaea, which gradually broke up into smaller mega-continents and finally just regular continents. This explains how there is a lot of commonalities between the animals and plants of different continents. So my understanding would be that there was around one (maybe a couple) species of Amaranth a long time ago, and they spread at at the time when there was no impediment of oceans etc. Then the continents broke up and as each evolved to its environment, they changed into a whole lot of slightly different species. Not sure how sound this idea is considering just how ridiculously long ago it was that the continents broke up... I'm hardly an expert. Oh, I just found a page about this here --Qirex 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

Should this be merged with Amaranthus? --DanielCD 18:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. -- WormRunner | Talk 20:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be actual links with the notable species?

If these species are really notable don't they deserve their own pages? It is irritating that they all redirect you to the amaranth page. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muggwort17 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 October 2005‎

It's a very bad practice to link to pages which are only, and have only ever been, redirects to the page one is already on. There is a point to having the redirect pages, but there is no point in creating links to them from the page which is the actual destination of those redirects. I'm going to remove all those links and leave it as just text. --Qirex 14:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The wiki is flexible. We can create articles for individual species when and if there is enough material. In the meantime, redirect here. — Pekinensis 17:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. It is extremely irritating that all those articles link here. It's not just because I consider it spamming/trolling/or something, it's that it discourages people from making species articles. Many times people make articles because it's their area of interest, and if someone wants to make multiple Amaranth species articles it becomes annoying. If you also link the common names, it becomes even MORE annoying. There are many common names for a single species and if someone does not know one and makes an article, the common name would still redirect here. --TheAlphaWolf 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

i agree with alphawolf 66.171.60.45 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

For kids ?

Does anybody knows how old a kid has to be to eat amaranth ? Already as baby (12 monthes) ? EstebanLux —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 18 January 2006‎

I'm no expert on Wikipedia, but I can tell you this: Wikipedia is not a recommended source of nutritional or medical information. Talk to your doctor. If s/he doesn't know, a nutritionist should. FunnyYetTasty 03:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's good to speak to experts, but that's no reason not to have (or seek) the information here for all to see. Doctors don't always have the answers to obscure questions at their fingertips, and well-referenced information here may be just as or more reliable.

EstebanLux - do you mean grain or leaf? See comment on leaf below. When I spent time in Indonesia, I was never aware of amaranth leaf being kept away from babies (as long as it wasn't reheated). --Singkong2005 ^talk 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reheating the greens

I added this:

Reheating cooked amaranth greens is often discouraged, particularly for consumption by small children, as the nitrates in the leaves can be converted to nitrites, similarly to spinach.^{[citation needed]}

I couldn't find a reference, but reheating amaranth greens (bayam) in Indonesia is widely considered to be a bad idea, apparently thanks to a government-run awareness campaign a few years back (sometime before 1998). --Singkong2005 ^talk 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A brief check through the web seems to indicate that reheating is not a problem. In fact a 2007 PNAS article indicates that nitrate and nitrite may be beneficial in the diet. Looking through pubmed I could find zero peer reviewed articles indicating that reheated spinach was dangerous. Pwoolf (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Need to trim the poetry

The extended quotation of poetry seems a bit excessive, being of secondary relevance to the actual plant. Could someone who is into the poetry please pick out a few lines to quote, if appropriate, then reference it so people can go elsewhere to read it? Thanks --Singkong2005 ^talk 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? Amaranth is clearly not an imaginary grain.

I edit WP about as often as I buy new socks, so I'm a little hesitant to wield the Revert Sword just yet. But the previous edits by Zoeana12 and 68.237.186.11 are clearly bogus. I'd like to preserve the intermediate edit by Escarbot, even though I'm reasonably sure the bot would come back and do it again if it got clobbered in a reversion. I'd be more comfortable if someone else made the changes for now, but I'd appreciate advice as to whether my assessment of the situation is in line with reality. What say ye? Myself248 12:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Content should be on left with infobox on right.

But the infobox is taking up the whole top of the page. Someone please fix, I would if I knew how. 68.2.35.62 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Amaranth in fiction

Not sure if this information actually is worth mentioning, so I'll just add it here: In the book "To Live Forever (novel)", by "Jack Vance", the society of immortals is called "Amaranth Society".--Cyberman TM (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Separate but related issue. The current page documents a minor reference (one of the fragrances associated with one of the characters) in an obscure fantasy novel (Abhorson) whose own entry is under challenge for notability. This detail does not inform us about popular culture nor about amaranth, and is suggested for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.206.169 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The subsections of "Myth, legend and poetry" need to go. They're pop culture magnets for things that don't belong in the article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

I see a mixture of American and British spelling. If I knew the plant originated in the old world, I'd go with British; if in the new world, I'd go with American. However, it seems to be native to both regions. Can anyone think of a good reason to go with one spelling or the other? DBlomgren (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of a good reason to prefer a particular style in this case. The original article included material from the 1911 Britannica, so maybe that counts as the first major contributor? I used British spelling in a recent edit, since the article I wanted to link is at coeliac disease. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Amaranth/Amaranthine in Music

Suggest that a mention be made of Asunder's track Twilight Amaranthine from their album A Clarion Call. 174.152.176.252 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ascaris

This is an old post, but it should be noted that such mentions are usually considered trivia, and not really appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Greek origns of the word Amaranth, as cited multiple times in the article, is wrong.

Amaranth does not come from a greek word, instead Amaranth comes from the sasnkrit word 'Amar'.

Sanskrit 'A' = Non

Sanskrit 'Mar' = to Die

So 'A-mar' = Non-Dying, that which is 'beyond-death'.

Amaranth is a Sanskrit word, Can someone please fix this 'Greek' mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.167.91 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2007‎

It's original research unless you provide a reliable source. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Amaranth Seed flour

Currently, the section says that the sample doughs were "pan-proved." However, I spend several years working in various bakeries and the term is "proofed," not "proved." I wanted to put a note here so that anybody who checks my edit will know why I did it, and that I do know what I'm writing about.JDZeff (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does "tampala" redirect here?

Not mentioned in article. Equinox (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a common name for Amaranthus tricolor (and now redirects there). Plantdrew (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nutritional value

Second paragraph: "[...] they are also a complementing source of other vitamins [...]" and in another line too. Does "complementing" = "good" or "complete"??? if so, why not put the clear and simple word "good"? If they mean "complement", what do they complement??

Sorry if my confusion is caused by a lack of nutrition vocabulary.

Excuse me for piggy-backing but I have a nutritional comment too.

Niacin (B3) (6%) 0.923 mg

This means Wikipedia says the rda of niacin is over 6 grams per day! Where are the studies to validate this. AFAIK that is off by a factor 6 or more.

Much of the "Nutrition" section and some of the "Human uses" section is covered, better, in the "Amaranth Grain" page Rweaver (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

History

"After the Spanish conquest, cultivation of amaranth was outlawed" what's the reference for this assertion?

I'm not sure what reference would be a good one, but I've read at least one history (which isn't a good source for the information) and seen several references elsewhere testifying to the fact that amaranth was formed into idols, often using honey or human blood as the binder, which the conquistadors found repugnant. Hanenkamp (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Huitzilopochtli, whose name means "hummingbird of the left side" or "left-handed hummingbird". (Real hummingbirds feed on amaranth flowers)" Huitzilopochtli was the God of war and the meaning of its name is still subject of discussion. Please give reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioCabo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Myth, legend and poetry

Part of this section about the origin of the word amaranth is relevant. But the original meaning in Greek seems to refer to another plant, as the real amaranth comes from Mexico. So perhaps this section should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRZH (talk • contribs) 21:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole section needs pruning. Please go ahead with editing. --Zefr (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amaranth. 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:

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) 09:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nutrition

I'm not sure if I am editing the talk page correctly (apologies if I am not). The nutrition section contains contradictory information on the protein content of amaranth. Specifically, one paragraph states that amaranth's protein content is 16-18% and compares this favorably to the protein content of wheat (14% or less). However, the nutrition section also states that "Uncooked amaranth grain is ... 14% protein," My assumption is that the 16% and 14% figures for amaranth come from two differing sources. I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done about the discrepancy, but it is confusing largely because the 16% figure is given as evidence of amaranth's superiority over wheat, but this evidence is then contradicted by the 14% figure. Pdanese (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"One cup (2.4 dl, 245 g) of cooked amaranth grain (from about 65 g raw) provides 251 calories and is an excellent source (20% or more of the Daily Value, DV) of protein,..." This does not seem to bear out in math: recommended DV for protein according to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Table 2-4, is 10 - 35%. Amaranth provides 8.814 g of protein per 65g raw, provided in the article. (8.814 g) * (4 cal/g) = 35.256 cal. Given the serving size of 251 cal, that is 17.628% of the daily recommended minimum 200 calories per day for a 2000 calorie diet. Moreover, the 35.25 cal of protein per 251 cal is only 14.0462% protein, which means that you are in the bottom range of the recommended 10 to 35% protein, if you eat only Amaranth, which implies that it is not an excellent source of protein. These values are also high as 4cal/g is an accepted rounding inaccuracy, where protein is actually less than 4 calories per gram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.152.1 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I restored the previous straightforward description of nutrition from reliable USDA data, as used across most nutrient tables in Wikipedia. Jde3bcu inserted this dubious and unconstructive edit to the nutrition section, causing the confusion and discrepancies in discussing nutrients. Comparison of amaranth protein content or individual amino acids to other grains (wheat) is unnecessary and not supported by sources as reliable as the USDA. Trying to compare actual protein contents across different grains when using different sources (and their respective differences in collected material and analytical methods) is an exercise inevitably leading to confusion. Our goal in writing for Wikipedia is to present clear summary information, not a thesis-like discussion of all possible conditions and comparisons; WP:WEIGHT. --Zefr (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)