Talk:Steel-cut oats

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big chunks of this article seem to be taken from, or at least based on, a health food vendor's web site: http://www.netrition.com/mccanns_oats_page.html

I don't see a copyvio; but I agree the source isn't reliable although it does make similar claims as the article. However it is not clear that the issue is npov more than just unverified claims. I am removing the npov tag, but added some fact tags. --TeaDrinker 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why steel?[edit]

This article doesn't explain why it matters what material is used to cut the oats. This would be useful information, if it is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.136.224 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe steel-cut just sounds better than "cut" or "chopped. I don't think bronze or ceramic blades would be very likely. I'm not exactly sure about the process for making rolled-oats, but if it was done with a stone wheel or roller (mills used to use stone wheels for grinding grains...perhaps they also did for oat-rolling) maybe the "steel" adjective was added to further emphasis the difference from the rolled variety. It smells like marketing to me, but it would be interesting if anyone could dig up the history. --Ericjs (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second the motion; I came here to ask "why is it steel-cut?" Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation?[edit]

steel cut oats take about 13-14 minutes on the stove top.[citation needed]

That seems like a really silly thing to require a citation for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.15.37 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comparison to grits should be made. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvonsimson (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this terminology used?[edit]

Where is this terminology used? The U.S.A.? E.g. steel-cut oats and Scottish oats are entirely unfamiliar terms to me (a Scot) and the latter seems no more distinctively Scottish than the multitude of other varieties of oats available in Scotland. The terminology may well be valid but is not universal and this should be clarified. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if steel-cut oats might be what I'd call pinhead oatmeal but I don't know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect so. I've got a bag of UK 'coarse oatmeal' here and they're oat groats sliced up into 2-3 bits, so that's I gather would be termed pinhead oatmeal elsewhere. Steel-cut appears to be a US term from my (shallow) website survey, but will do some more hunting later, and see if I can come up with something decent to clarify this all. Fuzi (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following website (http://www.foodsubs.com/GrainOats.html) states that 'steel-cut oats = Irish oats = Scotch oats = pinhead oats = coarse-cut oats = steel-cut oatmeal = Irish oatmeal = Scotch oatmeal = pinhead oatmeal = coarse-cut oatmeal = porridge oats = porridge oatmeal'. I am doing a research for an article on this, so will post more info later. Aghors (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Steel-cut oats' is a term unknown in the United Kingdom. I suspect among English-speaking peoples it may be confined to North America. What are 'steel-cut oats' to Americans is 'oatmeal' to Brits, normally accompanied by an additional descriptor to indicate the coarseness of the grind (thus 'fine oatmeal', 'medium oatmeal', 'coarse oatmeal', 'pinhead oatmeal'). I have a 25kg sack of medium oatmeal newly-arrived from Scotland sitting in my kitchen as I type this. To Americans 'oatmeal' seems to be synonymous with what we Brits call 'porridge', either the rolled and pre-steamed flakes from which porridge is usually made - 'porridge oats' to Brits (the article correctly notes that it is sometimes also made from milled, 'steel-cut' if you prefer, oat groats - hence the sack in my kitchen), or the sustaining and warming breakfast dish itself. It would be helpful if Americans, who seem reluctant to call a spade a spade (vide 'rest room'), could start to call porridge 'porridge' and not 'oatmeal'. But I hold out no hope of this. In the meantime, if further research can establish in what sense milled oat groats are actually 'steel-cut' (when wheat berries that have been through a steel roller mill are merely 'flour') and suitable references found, I may contribute an enlightening edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.5.228 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use to work in a health food store in Edinburgh. We sold a variety of grades of oats (organic or not, the various size of flake,) with 'steel-cut' being mentioned on at least some of the bags. I'm not sure where the mill(s) that provided the oats were located, but we were not importing them from the US. The store website still mentions steel-cut oats for some of its products that are supplied by British mills. 99.237.25.67 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current source seems less credible than and contradicts this source from a manufacturer. As a Scot, the description of the latter is more akin to typical meal available in Scotland than the former and more credibly fits the term as "Scottish oats" in the U.S.. Thus the difference from steel cut oats is that they are ground, not cut with steaming not playing a part. Mutt Lunker (talk)
I'm a Scot, I've never heard of "steel-cut oats" or "Scottish oats" or "Scotch oats". The oats depicted in the picture are what I have always called pinhead oatmeal, or simply oatmeal, I've even heard it referred to as coarse oatmeal. The only thing I've heard similar to "Scots oats" is "Scott's Porridge Oats" - which is a brand name for rolled oats for making porridge which popular in the UK.--86.128.155.88 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This term is in use in New Zealand[edit]

By Ruth Pretty. Article link here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/in-the-kitchen/7238115/Recipe-Steel-cut-Oat-Porridge JNZ (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steel-cut oats. 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:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on groat[edit]

The following is a copy of the conversation concerning the definition of the word groat"

Dear Mr. Lunker:

I am sorry to bother you, but the reason for my correspondence is, that I noticed that you reversed the contribution I made concerned the groat. The first time I placed it in the footnote, because it was the only part of the article which made a attempt to clearly explain what a groat is. You reversed it, because of attribution concerns, and I thought I adjusted accordingly, by putting the statement in the body of the article.

I was under the impression it was an introductory article, and unfortunately I ran across a word that I did not completely understood, & I was trying to make it easier for the next reader after me to understand some of the specialized words used in this subject matter. I believe its important to have a solid foundation, by having a succinct definition of certain words and phrases, before one can feel comfortable to delve deeper into the topic.

It is always easier to trivialize or mock those who are not familiar with the topic by saying that one "plonks" a definition arbitrarily into a sentence. Moreover, if you think it is in not an appropriate spot, then adjust the following statement's position accordingly:

"A groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed"

After all, I thought Wikipedia's mission was to accommodate people with varying level of expertise.

Please show some degree of empathy in the matter

Thank You

24.188.156.182 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Followup: How about this revision amended after the phrase "coarse oatmeal": made from the whole grain, which is hulled, namely, it has it outer husk removed, to expose the central whole oat groat.

24.188.156.182 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry if my attempt at humour caused offence. I have no doubt that your intentions are good but the insertion of a definition of a term used in a sentence already regarding a definition, of the article topic, makes that sentence cumbersome and obscures its intent. The definition of the article topic is clearer without your added diversion and the link to groat provides a quick route to a definition of that term for those who need it, without impeding the flow of the sentence for those who don't. If we added definitions in article text to all blue-linked terms Wikipedia would be a cumbersome read. Best wishes, Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX2077 (talk • contribs)

For the sake of clarity, as it has not been fully specified, the above is a copy and paste by @MrX2077 of dialogue here on my talkpage, instigated by an IP. I assume the IP and @MrX2077 are one and the same. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where possible, a term should be explained by a wikilink, rather than within an article. This means that readers who already understand the term aren't inconvenienced, while those who want an explanation can easily find one. It also avoids the problem of the embedded definition and the definition at the other article diverging as subsequent edits are made, until they become inconsistent: any database designer will understand the importance of storing each data item in only one place. Maproom (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maproom, I understand you have concerns about "consistency", & you reason through the use of a database metaphor. That would be fine and dandy, if a software program were to "scrape" the "database", looking for repeated data or certain type of data, but we are talking about "people" not "lines of code". But, what about beginners who are trying to understand the subject matter. We do not deserve any consideration whatsoever. This article is only the domain for advanced learners. This is a question of equality, inclusion, and fair access. Just because the means of communication has moved to an new medium, does not mean we should lose sight of the fundamentals of good writing. That means you should take the time to explain the terms you plan to introduce. If you take the time to write the article, you have an obligation to educate your readers, it is not an exercise in self-indulgence. MrX2077 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed at the high-end of the dispute resolution processes you attempted to engage in (the arbitration committee no less!) before bringing this discussion here, MrX2077, where it belonged in the first place, with time for others to respond.

Anyway, I agree with the thrust of your attempted edit, if not with the exact form. There is always a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, going too far afield in explanation of terms included in an article rather than just linking them (which can interrupt the flow), and on the other, making an article accessible by containing all the information where linked terms included are technical and not likely to be known by many readers; making them go to a different article through a link to access the meaning likewise is an interruption in the flow.

I think that balance depends on a number of factors, but the most important is how core to the basic definition of the topic is an understanding of the term. If very "core" it should receive more granular treatment – be defined in the article in addition to a link – and if not core, then let the link do its work. Secondary, is just how likely it is that most will have to use the link, given the relative obscurity of the term. Here, I think this could not be more "core". For a type of product like this (oatmeal), what it is made from and how its makeup is different from other types of oatmeal is so very basic to defining the topic that a link to just groat, with no granularity, is not enough.

However, I think part of the "problem" here (and what others may be reacting to) is that what we are working with is a very bare stub. My imagined ideal for an article like this is for the first sentence, as part of a lead section, to provide a more spare definition, and to receive more detailed treatment in the body. Since there is no body of an article here, your sensibility of expansive definition in the one paragraph, "all lead" article we have right now, makes sense, but goes against what we would expect to see in an an article with an actual lead and body.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a few words to explain groat in this article would be desirable. Wikilinks are useful to link to another article so that the reader can gain additional understanding about something. But to have to follow a link to get a basic understanding of the article at hand is just annoying. We should not try to make articles as cryptic as possible. See WP:EXPLANATION, and from the MOS WP:LINKSTYLE:

  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.

Since groat is not a well-know term, go ahead and use a few words to explain it in the article. MB (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated above in the copy and paste taken from my talk page, I believe this to be over-explanation. This is certainly not a highly technical term. However, should it be accepted that the term be explained in the article text, it should not be done in a manner which distracts from what the article is attempting to convey and particularly not in the garbled, convoluted and incoherent manner of the edits which I reverted. As mentioned, I believe the edits to have been good faith but they fell far short of acceptably-expressed English. Please take a look at them before suggesting their re-insertion. At best, a wording could be posted here first for discussion but if similar substandard text is added straight into the article, that would not be desirable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that groat is not "highly technical", but it is quite obscure and I think using the same guideline is reasonable. I did not suggest that any of the previous edits be used, I was just expressing my opinion on the concept. If you look at Oatmeal, that article includes "(i.e. grains)" after the first occurrence of groat. That's enough for me to make the article understandable without chasing a link. Another comment I have is that this article should really be merged into Oatmeal as was suggested in 2014; I don't see that there is or would ever be enough here for this to be a separate article.MB (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the discussion on merging is over at Talk:Oatmeal#Merger proposal MB (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

groat definition II[edit]

with the hulled grain known as a groat

In more succinct terms, the groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed) is called

In more succinct terms, the groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed) is called which have been chopped into two or three pieces.

(In more succinct terms, the groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed) is called — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX2077 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, really, why is this a separate article from groats?[edit]

Should be merged, also because this has no other language references while groats do, and it is the more common term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.142.15 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Terminology[edit]

These cannot be bought in the uk under the name coarse oatmeal, pinhead oats, no supermarkets have them. Is there another name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibinaear (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flavahan's[edit]

I removed a paragraph because it was a straight advertisement for a particular product. The so-called reference was to the manufacturer's web page. The text I removed was:

Irish oatmeal is not necessarily the same as pinhead oatmeal. For example, Irish firm Flavahan's produces both "Irish Porridge Oats", said to use a "unique way of milling",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.flahavans.co.uk/index.php/site-structure/main-menu/our-products/porridge-oats/porridge-oats/flahavans-irish-porridge-oats-original-1kg/163 |title=Irish Porridge Oats Original|website=Flahavan's|date= |author= |accessdate= 20 November 2018}}</ref> and a different "Pinhead Oatmeal", a "chopped wholegrain oat".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.flahavans.co.uk/index.php/site-structure/main-menu/our-products/porridge-oats/-speciality-wholefoods/flahavans-pinhead-oatmeal-1kg/387?fr=gb |title=Pinhead Oatmeal|website=Flahavan's|date= |author= |accessdate= 20 November 2018}}</ref>

Nick Beeson (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steel-cut_oats&oldid=1203773119"