Talk:Oryza glaberrima

African Enslavement Should Not Be The Default Explanation In The Absence Of Direct Proof

African Rice: "It was first domesticated and grown in West Africa,[2] and was brought to the Americas by enslaved West African rice farmers.[3] "

There is no evidence of who brought African rice to the Americas or when. Or even whether that happened after the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean. After all he merely used the North Equatorial Current to get from Senegal to the Caribbean, a route open to West Africans for tens of thousands of years, which only became available to Columbus and Spain in 1492, having been previously controlled by the Moors who were defeated in that year. There is no direct evidence that it was brought by Africans who were enslaved - not all Africans were. The source itself merely states there are several accounts, one indeed crediting Africans under slavery, others crediting Europeans. However it is not traced to one specific person, unless I am mistaken. Source given: Judith A. Carney (2004), "'With Grains in Her Hair': Rice in Colonial Brazil" (PDF), Slavery and Abolition, Frank Cass, London, 25 (1), pp. 1–27, doi:10.1080/0144039042000220900

More here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144039042000220900 83.84.100.133 (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Here are some reliable sources for use in this article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Linares (2002); PNAS, free full text PDF
• Ma and Bennetzen (2004); PNAS, free full text PDF
• Murray PhD dissertation precis

Article name

Actually Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) states,

Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. Example: Coffea.

This means that "African rice" which is the common name should be the name of this article, and a separate article Oryza glaberrima should be created. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The current article doesn't warrant a split. And the most commonly used name is the scientific name. "Common name", meaning the vernacular name of the species, and "use the most common name" (WP:COMMONNAME) are not the same thing. "African rice" is also ambiguous, since Oryza barthii is also an African rice. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

African rice is not "vernacular" it is described as such in many peer reviewed publications, eg, African rice (Oryza glaberrima): History and future potential Wapondaponda (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it's vernacular. Every plant "common name" is vernacular. To further illustrate my point that "African rice" is not a suitable name for this article, I present another publication: [1]. This article presents data on "African rice" resistance to a virus, but the paper isn't discussing Oryza glaberrima, but rice cultivars that are grown in Africa sensu "African rice production" or "African rice farming." In fact, check out all the google scholar hits: [2]. Most of these are presenting data on African rice fields or African rice farming, where "African" is an adjective describing the location (e.g. The African Rice Initiative), not the species of rice. This leads me to the conclusion that the title at the scientific name is the most precise and least ambiguous. It's also the most commonly used name for the species, as the raw google hits tell us:

"African rice" -wikipedia - 35,800

"Oryza glaberrima" -wikipedia - 50,700

I feel that Oryza glaberrima is a more suitable name for this article, given the ambiguity of "African rice". Rkitko ^(talk) 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Rkitko. The guidelines say that there should be separate pages for the crop as a food and as a plant, but there isn't enough information to justify two articles. I'm not convinced about that distinction, anyway; several much more major crops only have one page, e.g. Maize, Barley. Given the potential ambiguity (O. sativa is widely grown in Africa), it seems sensible to call the article Oryza glaberrima, and have African rice as a redirect (as it is). I've just added a 'Main article' link from the Africa section of the Rice article. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that as yet there may not be enough information to warrant two articles. My argument has been based on making the article accessible to a wider audience. If one were to ask a random person what is "Oryza Glaberrima" chances are they would have no idea, whereas the term "African rice" though ambiguous is descriptive and self explanatory. One possible solution is to create African rice as a disambiguation type page with links to Oryza glaberrima and Oryza barthii and possibly O. Sative that is cultivated in Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

...Which is exactly why we established WP:NC (flora). The principles outlined at WP:NC are weighed against each other. This article title may not be as recognizable, though users often expect to redirected to a scientific name in an encyclopedia when searching for a common name. Oryza glaberrima is, however, more precise, concise, and consistent. Weighing these principles, flora articles are often placed at their scientific names to avoid issues of ambiguity. Some have no such ambiguity issues, so we get Oak instead of Quercus. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better for African rice to redirect here, as there's a good chance that someone typing 'African rice' is looking for this species. We could perhaps have a line at the top saying something like "This article is about the species called African Rice. Asian rice (Oryza sativa) is also grown in Africa, and other species grow wild (see Oryza)". But at present, that's pretty much the entire article anyway. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for the assertion that African rice shatters more than Asian rice? Maybe a citation is needed. Frenchie2715 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Frenchie2715

Please create a redirect page for O. glaberrima

O. glaberrima

enter script:

1. REDIRECT Oryza glaberrima

Measurements

Re: this sentence: Long-grain gold-seed rice boasted grains 5/12ths of an inch long (up from 3/8ths of an inch), and was brought to market by planter Joshua John Ward in the 1840s. Despite its popularity, the variety was lost in the American Civil War.[13] 12ths of an inch? Where is this the standard? And the next measurement is in 8ths of an inch? Could we just change these to .417" and .375"? I think it makes it much easier to compare the sizes. Even putting the decimal equivalent in parentheses would be an improvement.

I wasn't sure if it would be acceptable to just put that in as an edit, so I came here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themadpatter (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the floating rice mentioned also African rice or only Asian rice?

Look, I'm really ill right now so I cannot verify that this is a problem. Plus this is something I'm dictating so please excuse any very strange words that pop up. In this article it says:

Rice growing in deeper, more permanent water became floating rice.

However, when you click on floating rice, that article is only about Asian rice and though it mentions Africa, it does so in a way that seems to imply (as far as I can currently tell) that Africa is using the Asian variety. So if this is a problem please do something about it. If it is not a problem, please just make a note here. I will try to remember to come back and do something about this but because I tend to pass out when I get fevers, I don't know if I'll even remember to look this up. Thank you very much! Geekdiva (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)