Talk:Gluten-free diet

message: Hi  I was wondering if you could tell me why a magazine article by a doctor didn't qualify as a reliable source. I read the link you provided, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), but I don't really see where the source I included, which relates to rheumatoid arthritis and gluten, doesn't meet the requirements. I wasn't sure where to ask you about this either, so I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask this question.
Thank you for your help! M.Renae (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We need secondary sources, published in rigorous scientific journals (peer reviewed) and your source does not meet these criteria. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca   (Talk) 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

text: You are right. These two sources are not WP:MEDRS. Thanks for the advice. I will replace them. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca   (Talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it . Best. --BallenaBlanca   (Talk) 19:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthritis source question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gluten-free diet. 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/20160305013411/https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedfiles/legislation/consultations/info_270204.pdf to https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedfiles/legislation/consultations/info_270204.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Confused about this bit:
The given source does seem to state the former, though it is made very clear that it is an indispensible baking tool; typical discourse on gluten states these two things, so that part's fine. It also does have a quip about wheat being "often considered no more than a source of calories", though it goes into detail about the details beyond that, then begins to talk about ancient wheats that may solve the problem presented in the article. However, your own article on wheat states that it is a health food as well as a natural source of gluten, which is certainly at odds with the second half of the above quote. Wheat is "essential" in that it has been a staple food for thousands of years, for which it is very difficult to find a replacement. Numerous foods could be reduced to "non-essential" if you were to go crazy trying to find replacements for them, and eventually you end up at Soylent or something (I'm not even snowballing, that's how Soylent was created). Your gluten-free diet article right here goes into detail about replacing wheat being difficult and dangerous, which also seems to be directly at odds with the quoted statement.
That is to say, I'm confused about the message Wikipedia is presenting with this particular sentence. Despatche (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of gluten/gluten sources? 

message: I'm concerned about this sentence:
People with poor basic education and understanding of gluten-free diet often believe that they are strictly following the diet, but are making regular errors.
This is a rather condescending statement. I believe that it is not always the fault of poor education and understanding, but rather that cross-contamination and mislabeling is a major issue.  
Techwriter789 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gluten free compliance