Talk:Founder crops

Four or five pulses?
The text speaks of eight species, including four pulses, but the list has nine species, including five pulses. Which is right? -- 85.182.127.103 13:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone added Khorasan as a cereal, which is absolutely not a founder crop. 173.20.113.250 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Curious: Americas
I am only superficially familiar with the history but presumably the creation of these crops in the Fertile Crescent is the origin of agriculture in Europe/North Africa, West Asia (this should be stated clearly). What is not discussed is the theories on founder crops in China, the Americas, etc. Whether those bears description here or bear description in some other articles is debatable but at minimum the article should clarify this.

--163.181.251.9 (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Name is Problematic
As mentioned by the user at 163.181.251.9, the name promises information about early crops from the entire Neolithic world, but in the initial paragraph identifies that the only area to be considered is the "Fertile Crescent". The writer actually dismisses the inclusion of rye (Anatolian cultivation of which antedates all the listed crops) because he feels it had little effect on the limited geographic area being discussed. Perhaps the title could be changed or the present article exported to "Neolithic Crops of the Fertile Crescent." Until it can be modified, however, I have added a paragraph warning readers of the shortcomings. 24 June, 2020 Ethnic laundry (talk)
 * The concept isn't just relevant to agriculture in Southwest Asia (or the Fertile Crescent). These species are called the 'founder crops' because, as the theory goes, the 'package' that formed in Neolithic SW Asia went on to spread and form the basis for agricultural economies across a wide swathe of Eurasia (as the article puts it, "the Middle East, North Africa, India, Persia and Europe"). It should absolutely be mentioned that there were limits to the founder crops' spread and that there were other centres of domestication, but the title is appropriate. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd entirely forgotten my edit on this!
 * I'm okay with John's reworking of my para#2, it continues to inform the unsophisticated reader that the article is about "founder crops" rather than founder crops. Use of specific jargon will continue to plague Wikipedia, so I try to imagine one of my high-school-age students using an article for information.  If they would misunderstand it (or unintentionally mis-use what they read), then it's a candidate for an explanation.
 * Thanks for getting back on this -  Ethnic laundry (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't follow... the article is about founder crops rather than founder crops? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think EL means it's about the term as it's usually used rather than about all founder crops. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. As far as I can tell the term is only used for these eight crops from SW Asia, not generally. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only the article name is problematic...
...the article really needs structure. At this point it looks like a drawer of stuff or an accumulation over time with random sedimentation of info in the lede that nobody seems to want to properly organize in meaningful sections in the body. As has been pointed out above since at least 2007 (!) a definition or the theory on founder crops is missing. Wuerzele (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Much better. I've fixed the title as suggested, and updated the lead to match. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it was written almost entirely by me in May 2022. I don't think your changes to the structure are an improvement. The lead section is supposed to summarise the whole topic (key definitional points are now shunted to the bottom of the article) and I don't see how extremely generic headings like "definition" and "description" are better than e.g. "domestication" (for a section covering the domestication of the founder crops) and "cultivation and spread" (for a section covering their cultivation and spread). I've reverted pending consensus here.
 * I haven't had time to look at all of them, but honestly the subsequent changes seem extremely hasty to me also. Zohary and Hopf's theory (nb. not just Zohary's) is/was widely accepted, but subsequent research has expanded the range of species that can be considered "founder crops", and led some scholars (including me, FWIW) to question whether the concept is still useful. That's science progressing, not a "debate", and it doesn't justify removing or inserting conditional phrases before unrelated, uncontested facts like "all of the founder crops are native to Southwest Asia" or "the staple crops of Neolithic agriculture were cereals". –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm merely correcting Wuerzele's assumption that the prior version was a drawer of stuff or an accumulation over time with random sedimentation of info in the lede. I haven't reverted everything and have explained why I've reverted what I have. So thanks for the constructive response. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)