Talk:Digestive biscuit

message: == Mighty Biscuit
You'll have to go a long long way to find it soggy biscuit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.96.93 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

message: Cookies are soft and chewy, the digestive is neither.
:Cookies can be soft, hard, or chewy. You might want to consider your limited experience before making further suggestions for Wiki?? 76.102.157.205 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That can certainly be cited.  For example, "Technology of Biscuits, Crackers, and Cookies ... Duncan Manley ... The word 'biscuit' is an all-embracing term in Britain and several other countries. It includes items ... The name cookie was adopted in North America where the term 'biscuit' can be confused with small soda- raised breads or muffins. In other ..." In another work by a different author, "English Across Cultures, Cultures Across English: A Reader ... Ofelia García, ‎Ricardo Otheguy ... Thus British biscuit and American cookie may be cited as equivalent terms. But the referential scope of the British term does not coincide with that of the American one. British biscuit corresponds to cracker as well as cookie and this is more ..." I'd suggest reading portions of the linked texts. Gzuufy (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cookie? 

message: I found the following passage to leave out vital information.
"The name 'digestive' comes from a belief that the biscuits had antacid properties due to the use of bicarbonate of soda when they were first conceived."
This sentence is not 100% clear on the health benefits (or lack thereof) of digestives. The reader is meant to assume that the old notion of the biscuits having health benefits has since been debunked, however, the passage does not state this. So which is it; good for the stomach, bad for the stomach, or neutral?
--There must actually be some benefit due to the use of bicarbonate of soda, since it says under Sodium bicarbonate's page that this is commonly used as an antacid. 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell that to anyone who's gotten a sour tummy from too many biscuits! You've forgotten the flour power. Baked goods definitely have an antacid effect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Regarding this edit (diff), someone should rewrite the lede to say that digestive was a reference to enzymatic activity.  The bit about baking soda being good for digestion stretches credulity quite a bit. And by the way, the sentence that went with the reference I put up some time back, Even earlier, one 1851 issue of The Lancet London advertised at least two sources of digestive biscuits, one such baker, William Hill, offered "brown meal digestive biscuits" has been deleted, it has nothing to do with the sentence it currently cites. Gzuufy (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health benefit? 

message: What's the origin of these biscuits; where (and by whom) were they first produced? It's mentioned that McVitie's produced the first chocolate digestive in 1925, so presumably the plain digestive dates back earlier than this (Victorian era perhaps?) 217.155.20.163 00:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin? 

message: Both standard & chocolate-covered digestives are reported to be sold in quantities of 71 million packets every year, however this is equated to 51 per second on the first instance & 52 per second on the second instance. Even though these are just approximations, surely the same number of packets should equate to the same number per second?
:Well that depends on if it's a leap year or not, now doesn't it? :) Gigs (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: Well, that section's funny, but is hasn't got anything to do in Wikipedia. Add it to Stupedia or stuff... --89.204.154.64 (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It involved a sitting PM and has been cited by published sources. KimChee (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buscuitgate 

message: I read the article and found several errors on inspection and outrageous and unsupportable marketing claims....not a good thing for an encyclopedia.  Now that I've read the comments, I see that one of the commentators has repeatedly asked for corrections and balanced sourcing, to no avail.  His last comment was about the trolls under the bridge guarding the bridge in order to keep fact based information from entering the encyclopedia....again, not a good thing for an encyclopedia.
So, I've tried to open one small crack in the roadblock in the hopes information will again be allowed to flow. 
Digestive biscuits are not widely available in the US.  The phrase "widely available" would more aptly apply to, say, Oreo's, or Snicker's.  I've run a straw poll of Americans and found NONE had ever heard of a "digestive biscuit" (yet they've strangely heard of Oreo's and Snicker's).  I've run a straw poll of the Brits I know, and 100% know, not only of digestive biscuits, but of McVities as well (at this point I presume McVities is the ONLY manufacturer of this product).  I've added a quote from a websource which I've referenced in the article to reflect that digestive biscuits are tremendously lesser known and available than Oreo's and Snicker's in the US.
Mind you, Wikipedia is not the right forum for you to promote your products....even if you WISH your product was used by more people.  I respectfully request the fanboys of this relatively unknown product relinquish their death grip block of fact based information so that readers can have an accurate description of the product.  Otherwise, they'll be running out their local Market Basket or HEB Pantry fully expecting to see "digestive biscuits" on the shelf....which they won't.
Finally, I do not know what the health benefit of baking soda/powder in baked products is supposed be since its purpose is not pharmaceutical, but rather to chemically react inside the baked goods to produce bubbles.  I've seen nothing to support baked goods being especially helpful because of their baking soda since most of it is chemically converted to something else after the baking process.  On the other hand, I have read repeatedly that products with ginger and high fiber have important gastroenterological benefits (e.g. ginger snaps or oatmeal raisin bran muffins).  My point is that the term "digestive" is quite possibly more of a marketing tool than any demonstrable benefit to the consumer.  In any event, I'll leave that as a question that I don't have an answer to.  But there is no question as to the niche market availability in the US.
N0w8st8s (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanboys of Digestive Biscuits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Digestive biscuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215145653/http://www.mcvities.com:80/about-mcvities/brand-history to http://www.mcvities.com/about-mcvities/brand-history
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.englishteastore.com/mcormichdi30.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As generally described in page edit history today, here we go;
Removed basally wrong statements in Nutrition; the source nowhere states those are average values, and the values listed are infact those of the brand Verkade Digestive biscuits, which only changed a fraction since. Based on the brand, not declaring they based it off that brand Verkade. You can verify all listed nutritional values are extremely similar to the current Verkade biscuit specifications, indicating they only changed a few decimals to the current packaging with recipe altering (I checked with a Verkade Digestive product recently bought, reading off the package).
So the facts:
- The Nutritional text implied it were average values, but the source page doesnt mention it.
It was therefore written to let reader believe that were average values, possibly with deceptive intention as they were Verkade brand values or hand-altered to be close on few decimal value differences,
in order to let it be general accepted values and let customers assume if that were average values, Verkade did pretty good with their nutritional values. So it's possible a Verkade employee wrote it that way.
That cannot be exluded as possibility.
The complete image of invalid source for the basic statement (that they were average values for 'Digestive' biscuits, which isnt supported by the source), and the fact source's nutritional facts are based on Verkade biscuits, furthermore proving they are highly unlikely to even be average values ontop of source not naming them as averages, led me to remove the whole Nutritional column.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooker (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Nutritional values part 

message: I have made several attempts to edit this in, please discuss why or why not. Many thanks! Jms6000 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originated in Britain with the Abernethy biscuit, pre the time period stated.