Talk:Bulgur

Dish
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? ACEO 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

very slightly?

 * "Bulgur is very slightly more nutritious than rice and couscous."

Ahem. ... -- Toytoy 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Bulgur = Ala?
SO I went to the store to buy wheatberries but could only find bulgur. I bought some Bob's Red Mill  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)

More common
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)

Bulgar?
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 Citing_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:

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)


 * After no comment for a week, I have again removed the CN tag. I am still happy to discuss. GyroMagician (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at the discussion page, sorry. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, I agree now, it seems to be a rather common name. I just found it dubious. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You made me justify its inclusion, which is no bad thing ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite right ;) --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism problems with this article!
A chunk of this article has been plagarized (word-for-word) from http://www.durubulgur.com/Pages/98/What-is-Bulgur/About-Bulgur.aspx. We need to repair. Unfortunately this will require more time than I have today. Anyone else is welcome to weigh in. Sigh - Williamborg (Bill) 19:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty blatant copy/paste job by an anonymous editor. I've restored the version just previous to that one. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutrients in a reference amount
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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".
 * I hope we now agree.... --Macrakis (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dry vs cooked
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)
 * 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)

Bulgur is partially cooked (steamed or parboiled) wheat which is then dried and crushed
The main description is wrong/misleading. The dictionary references are wrong/misleading. See de:Bulgur or fr:Boulghour Temblast (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)