Talk:Artificial rice

Merger proposal
I propose that Artificial rice be merged into Rice. I've just substantially updated the page, since it existed just to promote the unsubstantiated urban myth that rice made from plastic is commonly manufactured in China and distributed in the West and elsewhere. I've reduced it to the basic claim, and linked to the Snopes article that examines the claims thoroughly (and which brought me here). What's left is almost certainly not notable enough to remain though, so can be merged back into the main Rice page, or just deleted. (Either way, I'll let Snopes know, since their page mentions this article in its former form.) Loxlie (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree
"artificial rice" is a major topic and cannot be merged to main article, because, the articial rice is being marketed more and more in India and other countries. Further, one editor deleted several sourced contents in the guise of "substantially updating" which cannot be accepted. Sourced content to be deleted only after giving appropriate edit summary/reason. I have restored the sourced contents and invite for fair debate by other editors. - Rayabhari (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Rayabhari. I am that editor. I gave my reason above, in the Merger Proposal section. "since it existed just to promote the unsubstantiated urban myth that rice made from plastic is commonly manufactured in China and distributed in the West and elsewhere". I included a link in the article to the major fact-checking site Snopes - http://www.snopes.com/plastic-rice-from-china/ which discusses that very thoroughly. Have you read it? The Snopes article says about this very page "An extant Wikipedia page (littered with clear signs of editorial neglect) lists plastic rice as an "imitation food," but its citations are largely newer iterations of the old unproven rumor." That is your doing. There are other pages that show how wrong this is, like http://indonesiaexpat.biz/other/scams-in-the-city/the-fake-rice-that-never-was/ and even some of your own sources disprove your own claim.
 * You say "artificial rice is being marketed more and more in India and other countries" - this is your claim. You don't mention this in your article, and certainly don't provide any sources. And "artificial" rice is far too vague. "Fabricated rice" is a much more helpful term, and does not imply any wrong-doing, health effects, or dishonesty. Certainly that exists - it's almost too obvious to state it, let alone have a whole article on, but I'd be perfectly happy with a sentence on the main rice article, such as "Rice-shaped pellets can also be created from other ingredients, and produced using an extrusion machine. Such foods may be cheaper to produce, and more nutritionally rich, than rice itself." (plus sources). As opposed to the "plastic rice" rumour, which is a very different and mildly sociologically interesting thing.
 * To make things more dramatic, you contradict yourself, saying that plastic rice is easily spotted, because it remains hard, but it is impossible to detect. That's just silly, and again you're intentionally and clumsily conflating "fabricated rice" with "plastic rice". Most of the sources you provide for plastic rice are just reports of investigations, and all have long since concluded there was nothing of concern. I could go through each of them, but that's already been done. (ref. Snopes)
 * Your claim that this is a "major article" is not supported at all. You've only managed to come up with a few lines on it, spread thinly among confusing headings, intentionally ignoring the only actual significant feature of the topic - the urban myth - and the sources that discuss it.
 * I'm happy to leave this as it is for now. We absolutely need to get some more Wiki editors to notice this major article, and weigh in...
 * Loxlie (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

 * I believe the article should be deleted. It is about two different things: fake rice made from plastic, and artificial rice made from other starchy foodstuffs. The former claims are not credible, are made in an unreliable source, and have been debunked. The latter are credible, but unremarkable, and do not warrant an article. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

A deletion proposal would need to be taken to AfD, but I think a case can be made that the topic is notable in its own right. I think this article should include information on reformed rice (fortified rice flour extrudate) as well extruded cereal products that look like and are used like rice but may contain other cereal.

The information about plastic rice could be reduced to a short mention, or removed completely if sufficiently reliable sources cannot be found. The following sources could possibly be used to expand the article: --Boson (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Boson, I suggest you be WP:BOLD and clean up this mess. I came here from the Snopes article and this article is a disgrace, and your solutions seems very reasonable. Renata (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Renata I still think my WP:BOLD (and rapidly reverted) version was best as a starting point. Boson's current edits are far too polite. Suggest reverting back to mine, as a minimal but structurally sound article, then Boson adds her/his excellent info and links... Loxlie (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that as a starting point for adding additional information (and preferably merging the other articles on the subject, see merge proposal, below). I will be bold and implement what I understand to be consensus so far (mainly reverting to your version, but with my merge proposal). --Boson (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking good Boson. Loxlie (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge of NutriRice and Ultra Rice into Artificial rice
I propose that the articles NutriRice and Ultra Rice be merged into this article, since all three articles are about reformed ("artificial") rice. --Boson (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)