This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Bulgur is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
There is a salad dish called "tabouleh" that can be made with bulgur wheat, so who is going to be bold and mention this here? ACEO19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now the very slightly is gone, but the claim remains. How can Bulgur be more nutritious than couscous, when they more or less the same thing - wheat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.48.244 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couscous is a more refined product (basically pasta, made from Semolina), so I guess it make sense that it might be slightly less nutritious. It's still all better for you than fries from McD's. PDCook (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SO I went to the store to buy wheatberries but could only find bulgur. I bought some Bob's Red Mill[1] bulgur, and it says:
"Toast Cracked Wheat"
Bulgur
also known as Ala
This articles has that bulgur isn't cracked wheat at all and doesn't mention Ala. So what is ala? Is bulgur really not cracked wheat? Needs clarification. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think bulgur is more common (in the US) than this article suggests. Many regional and national grocery stores (Kroger, Meijer, Harris Teeter, Publix) carry it in the health food aisle. In fact, I don't think I've ever had trouble finding it. But that's original research! PDCook (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Kreuzkümmel added a citation needed tag to "Bulgar", offered in the first sentence of the article as an alternative spelling of "Bulgur". I think this is over-tagging, so I removed it. Kreuzkümmel undid my removal so,to avoid falling into WP:3RR, let's discuss. For some guidance on citations in WP, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When and why to cite sources. Citations are used to verify statements in the article that may be (or should be?) challenged, and are discouraged in the first paragraph. It is certainly not common practice to provide citations for the word being described by the article.
I thought maybe Bulgar was a mis-spelling of Bulgur, so I ran a quick Google search. This is an imperfect test, but it does indicate whether a spelling is at least in reasonably common use. The results were:
Spelling
Hits
"Bulgur wheat"
344,000
"Bulghur wheat"
25,000
"Burghul wheat"
9,600
"Bulgar wheat"
158,000
These were searched on google.com, including the quotes around the words.
"Bulgar" is the second most common usage of the four by a large margin. This is clearly a spelling in common use. Kreuzkümmel - do you want to explain why you think "Bulgar" needs a citation, while the other spellings do not? GyroMagician (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I guessed this page would be on your watchlist, but I guess I should have left you a note. Any thoughts on the bulgar question? GyroMagician (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In presentation of nutrient contents, it is standard in Wikipedia and expert nutrition reviews to use 100 gram amounts as the basis for comparison among foods. The nutrition section of the article presents the USDA table of nutrients for bulgar, showing also the % Daily Value (DV) for that amount in 100 grams. Nutrient contents below 10% DV are considered insignificant for labeling, according to the FDA. --Zefr (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reference amount is important when mentioning specific amounts of nutrients. However, it is not useful for qualitative comparison. That is, "rich in nutrients" is independent of the amount, though of course "7g of protein is not independent of the amount. --Macrakis (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the FDA, "rich" is equivalent to "excellent source" and "high in content", and requires that the quantitative content of a nutrient is 20% or higher of the Daily Value (DV), the definition appearing on all packaged foods in the USA and Canada, and showing in the USDA nutrition tables used for food articles in Wikipedia. "Moderate" or "good" content is 10-19% DV; insignificant or "low" content is <10% DV. The % DV is determined by the nutrient content in a specified amount of the food consumed or compared, and therefore the mass of food is part of the determination, such as 100 grams displayed in the table. Explained here under "Other Nutrient Content Claims. If bulgar were consumed in a 10 or even a 50 gram amount, many nutrients - protein, fiber, B vitamins - would not qualify to be "rich". Amount is necessary; restoring previous context. --Zefr (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I am apparently not expressing myself clearly.
Per the FDA, a food is "rich" in some nutrient if it "Contains 20% or more of the DV per RACC". So the "per RACC" is already included in the definition of "rich"; saying "it contains 20% or more of the DV per RACC per 100 grams" is silly.
It's as though you said "a liter of water is denser than a liter of oil". That's wrong: water is denser than oil, in any quantity. A ml sample of water is denser than a liter sample of oil, since density is measured as mass per volume, not simply mass. Similarly for "rich in nutrients".
The portion size used for nutritional information in this article is for dry bulgur, not bulgur as eaten, which is misleading; for other foods, we list the nutritional content of 100g of prepared food. The USDA does provide the relevant information. We should update to it. --Macrakis (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You can copy the format of the nutrition table for dried, then change the numbers correspondingly for cooked, with text defining the differences per 100 g. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgur is partially cooked (steamed or parboiled) wheat which is then dried and crushed
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
