Jump to content

Talk:Vitamin U

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

Comments

[edit]

Okay, so I am heading the movement to keep these substances from being pigeon-holed into S-Methylmethionine. Someone else tried to put some irrelevance, mostly Cheney, into that article. It's archived here. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

This article needs reliable sources that show that Vitamin U is the prominent name for this substance and not something else like S-Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride as in: Lee, Na Young; Park, Kui Young; Min, Hye Jung; Song, Kye Yong; Lim, Yun Young; Park, Juhee; Kim, Beom Joon; Kim, Myeung Nam (2012). "Inhibitory Effect of Vitamin U (S-Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride) on Differentiation in 3T3-L1 Pre-adipocyte Cell Lines". Annals of Dermatology. 24 (1): 39–44. doi:10.5021/ad.2012.24.1.39. PMC 3283849. PMID 22363154.   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comes through with the fact that most of the substances in the article are not clearly related to methylmethionine, and yet they are both: components of cabbage and beneficial. For example, Broccoli sprouts are category:antibiotics with action action against Helicobacter Pylori. The relevant chemical is not strong enough in cabbage to cause an in vitro effect. I bring up H. Pylori, because the conventional treatment for peptic ulcer iz antibiotics. In other words, if you could not afford a Gastroenterolgist, you might get away with wikipedia and B.S. :) 137.186.41.70 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Medical Sources

[edit]

This article needs reliable medical sources like systematic reviews and not primary research. If the substance called Vitamin U is the same as S-Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride, then reliable sources should be provided about its benefit or lack therof because Cheney's claim of benefit would be contradicted by Kopinski, JS; Fogarty, R; McVeigh, J (2007). "Effect of s-methylmethionine sulphonium chloride on oesophagogastric ulcers in pigs". Australian Veterinary Journal. 85 (9): 362–7. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2007.00197.x. PMID 17760939.   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the experiment had negligible rezults, except in the case of highly-diseased pigs, and the experiment used S-Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride (SMMSC), Cheney's claim of benefit in Cabbage juice would be irrelevant if Cabbage juice did not contain SMMSC. I do not know how much SMMSC cabbage juice contains, so I am not equipped to say how much relation is between Kopinski and Cheney. It's certainly not a contradiction, though: Both got pozitiv rezults. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

[edit]

137.186.41.70, you keep adding more and more stuff that is only tangentially related to S-Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride (Vitamin U). Are you trying to write an article about health benefits of cabbage? Or are you trying to write an article about S-Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride (Vitamin U)? I think only the first sentence is on topic, and the rest of the article is just about health benefits of cabbage.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to write about health benefits of cabbage, maybe the best place would be Cabbage#Medicinal properties.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In many instances, cabbage is not the best way to go. While it contains all of these isothiocyanates and indoles, the most helpful ones are not always present in sufficient amounts in cabbage to contain a medical effect. As I said on your talk page, I would be willing to redirect to Brassicaceae#Medicinal_Properties.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Vitamin U → Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride – According to the NCI Thesaurus, Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride is the preferred name. Vitamin U and S-Methymethionine Chloride are among the synonyms. --Relisted JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the dictionary is that I do not see Cheney accepting such a narrow definition of the healthy chemicals in cabbage, and I see lots of other researchers checking these things out. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem with requesting a discussion of the move is that I've already offerred to copy the content into Brassicaceae#Medicinal_Properties and redirect Vitamin U to that place. No need is to create orphans with some bot that tries to make wikipedia into a vote full of people who won't even look at the talk page to see the whole discussion. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.

Vitamin U is all over the web. There are even pages that do not accept methylmethionine.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

Vitamin U is cabbage juice in Cheney's articles. methylmethionine is only one component of cabbage juice. It is a very natural name for something that is very naturopathic. In other words, moving content from methylmethionine to Vitamin U would be better. I am not interested in doing that, yet.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to indicate accurately the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise.

Vitamin U was named after Ulcers. It is an anti-Ulcerogenic factor. While I haven't found much in gastroenterology regarding isothiocyanates and indoles...it might well be that when I write a header with gastroenterology, I will be left with nothing to write about except methylmethionine.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.

One proposal, "methylmethionine sulfonium chloride" is very long, and it should probably be redirected here if it is ever created. The proposal I put on the table is two words.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

The chemicals already in the article cover several fields of medical expertise, and I suspect that doctors would welcome something that sounds very simple, however complex chemical components of Brassicaceae and their decomposition products may turn out to be. I believe they deserve their own article, yet I hav offerred to move.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further reading

[edit]

I think we can safely lose those references in the further reading. I had a quick scan through and they all looked like primary sources. Lesion (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.238 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put them in MMSC. I wiL not argue if someone takes them out, because they look like someone's search and select at PubMed, so they avoid the point of [1].
Training goes faster with less do and more talk.
The tone of your comment on my talk page suggests that you do not agree with WP:MEDRS. Rather than continue to edit on the basis that this policy is wrong, suggest you discuss why you think it is wrong on the talk page of the policy. However, while that policy stands, expect that sooner or later every bit of content you add to wikipedia based on primary sources is liable to be removed.
Per my previous comment, please do not use primary sources wherever possible, and please do not use them to "over-rule" reliable secondary sources, as has happened here. The mainstream sources like the NCI thesaurus state that it is a synonym of a single chemical. The argument "the dictionaries are wrong" is not acceptable. Please provide a reliable secondary source to support other views. The wikipedia article should represent the mainstream view, and other uses of the term should be presented reflective of the weight accorded them in reliable secondary sources, and not receive undue emphasis based on cherry picking of primary sources to support a single editor's personal views rather than a neutral point of view. Lesion (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

Does vitamin U really cure ulcers? I stumbled upon this article and found much of the content dubious, but I don't know enough to try to fix it. Can anyone here take a stab at it? Edgeweyes (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged to S-methylmethionine, I am fairly sure they are the same thing. Lesion (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NCI thesaurus entry is pretty clear that S-methymethionine chloride and Vitamin U are both synonyms for Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride, so it's just the difference of the chloride ion. Should be one article with redirects and an explanatory hatnote. Certainly the sourcing should be improved, there are scads of primary sources in there. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems from the history of S-methylmethionine that vitamin U used to redirect there, but was made into a stand alone article. Since, there has been a discussion to merge it to Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride before, citing the same source as you have above, however the consensus (incorrectly imo) did not merge it. Might be good to alert wikiproject molecular biology about this. My merge tags were taken off with the explanation that this merge was proposed before. I directed one of the IPs to WP:MEDRS and another secondary source treating Vitamin U and S-methylmethionine as synonyms. Might be the case that there are sources using the term slightly differently from each other, but the source you provide above sounds authoritative to me, and I think we should follow that. Lesion (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further support for S-methymethionine chloride as a synonym: CID 14220 from PubChem and Vitamin U at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Unfortunately it appears there is a lack of suitable Vitamin U review articles. Boghog (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.123.238 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To do the merger properly, all of the content from one article would hav to be put into the other article. At this point, that means moving all content from S-methylmethionine to Vitamin_U, then making the chemical name into a redirection, so that the other chemicals in Vitamin_U can be accomodated. Note that accomodating the other chemicals invalidates three dictionary entries for being overly simple. Note also that such a thing az an appeal to authority iz.
Following the rules will not get the job done.
-- Dilbert

75.152.123.238 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not prone to doing the merjer, because I suspect that s-methyl-methionine will be shown az a downstream metabolite of I3C, at which point there might be a race to find out whether I3C haz more effects on microbes, which it probably duz.
To believe it makes it true, therefore it's brain fart.

75.152.123.238 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the merjer actually requires deleting content from MMSC, because the chembox would be confusing: It would lead people into thinking that Vitamin U wuz one compound. That iz my second reason not to do the merjer; lost content.
QUANDO OMNI FLUNKUS MORITATI (when all else fails, play dead)
--Red Green

Review at http://jocpr.com/vol4-iss1-2012/JCPR-2012-4-1-209-215.pdf LeadSongDog come howl! 01:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This review again lists vitamin U as a synonym of S methylmethionine. My understanding of this situation is as follows:
  • we have 3 reliable secondary sources which describe the term as a synonym.
75.152.123.238 (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It iz not a comparative review. It iz not even asking the question of whether MMSC iz the only beneficial compound in cabbage. Nor iz it asking whether MMSC duz everything that isothiocyanates and indoles do. It iz not asking whether MMSC gets its methyl group from diindolylmethane, either. It's taking MeSH terms for gospel.
Muttabolism, n. : What makes a dog active.
75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That iz reazon enough to believe that two of them copied one of them.
If you take more from the dump than you leave, then you might be a redneck.
  • we have an IP editor who turned the original vitamin U redirect into a stand alone article, which apart from the secondary sources recently added, is based almost entirely on primary sources
75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are few secondary sources on this topic, it iz bekuz wikipedia's article iz not quite up to the point of being itself a secondary or tertiary source on this topic. In other words, Vitamin U iz not a point of focus for reviewers, because this concept haz only been exhumed for a year.
No shrink beats a puppy licking your face.
  • the IP is using some of the primary sources to over-rule the secondary sources and change the tone of the article to state that vitamin U is not a synonym but a term referring to several chemicals. The IP particularly prefers to use the primary sources of one author, which could be argued constitutes WP:CHERRY, WP:COI and WP:UNDUE. WP:NOR may also apply here.
75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rezent this lie. I hav used the name of one author in the article, because he wuz or iz a professor at Stanford University, and he coined the term. In other news, I do not use author names in searches, unless I remember that their work supports or refutes whatever I am trying to say, so MANY authors are in references of this article.
Kirk -"Bones! It's Ensign Pillsbury!" McCoy -"He's bread, Jim."
  • the IP has failed to provide a reliable secondary source to support the content currently supported by these primary sources
75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I hav one secondary source in this article, then you are lying. If wikipedia iz the only potential secondary source on this topic, then I can be excused. Broad attacks on somebody's performance that are lies are also personal attacks.
RECURSIVE: adj. See recursive.
  • they are also willing to make personal attacks towards other editors and edit war
75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One reversion of somebody's work duz not constitute an edit war. "Yoh Momuh Jokes" are not personal attacks. They are impossibilities.
Confucius say: If you turn an oriental around, he become disoriented.
This is mainly a semantic question that is created by the fact that the "active" ingredient is a sulfonium cation. Furthermore pure cations cannot be put into a bottle with out an anionic counter ion of which there are potentially an infinite number. In living organisms, chloride is by far the most common anionic counter ion. Hence vitamin U isolated from natural sources is most likely to be the chloride salt. Hence it is understandable that the reliable sources mentioned above define vitamin U as methylmethionine sulfonium chloride. For these reasons, I support renaming the vitamin U article as methylmethionine sulfonium chloride with a redirect from vitamin U. Boghog (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.123.238 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sulphide toxicity in colonocytes is reversible by

methyl donors."[1]Diindolyl methane iz a methyl donor.
I FOUND JESUS! He wuz in my trunk when I got back from Tijuana.

Thanks for clarifying that. I will place move tags on the article. WP:COMMONNAME was the main reason it wasn't moved 1 year ago, however this does not apply to chemical names...we should be using the standard scientific name. Can I ask if it is still appropriate that S-methylmethionine keeps its synonym of "vitamin U" (in the infobox)? Lesion (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, yes since the MeSH link lists S-methylmethionine as a synonym of "vitamin U". Boghog (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there is an open merge discussion it is appropriate for there to be tags on an article, please stop removing them. This is the second time you have done this. Lesion (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them once from this article, because there had already been a formal oppozition to a merger that wuz much like this one, and there were TWO reasons to oppose a merger based upon policy. Lesion haz been mentioning only one piece of policy that she opposes. I inverted the direction of both merger tags, because the formal decision had been in favour of "Vitamin U" az a name. Lesion haz managed to illustrate that several cousins of the same chemical are in different media. She illustrated that by directing talk to a non-existent talk page (methyl methionine sufonium chloride), rather than this one. I fixed it.
Bulldozer: One who sleeps through a political speech.

Respectfully, the argument "the sources that disagree with me are wrong, and they copied from each other" is not acceptable. Please provide reliable secondary sources. I find it confusing that you say you do not make personal attacks and then appear to suggest that I am "a redneck" and a liar in the same edit. Again, with respect, some of your edits can be described as edit warring (see diagram for explanation). Wikipedia is not a secondary source, it is (or aims to be) a tertiary source. If this topic cannot be presented as a tertiary source (i.e. there are no secondary sources) then the topic should not be on wikipedia (WP:NOTABILITY). When an editor constructs an article from mainly primary sources, especially primary sources that disagree with the mainstream view, this makes it original research/synthesis and the primary sources need to be removed. I am sorry if it seems like we are stopping your original synthesis here, but please take time to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies so you can work in harmony and not have your hard work wasted. I would also like to suggest that there are avenues for original synthesis available outside of wikipedia, i.e. publication in biomedical journals etc. Lesion (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.237 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chris_Capoccia put a template:notability at the top of this article when it wuz a stub; one paragraph of supported statements. When it branched into four medical sections and nine categories, he took it off.
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by moving from where you left them to where you cannot find them.
  1. ^ "Review on Biochemical Importance of Vitamin-U" (PDF).
If not enough secondary sources can be found, it is a notability issue. Again I point out that the results of a previous incident do not prevent future questions about the articles state. Articles are dynamic and change from day to day. Incorrect decisions are frequently made due to low level traffic and inexperienced editor interest on fringe topics. The enforcement of wikipedia's policies can seem arbitrary based on these factors. This is no reason for the correct decisions not to be made in the fullness of time. Lesion (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Material added to talk page with no suggestion as to how it may improve the article

Why would a pill cure my ulcer?

[edit]

75.152.123.237 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let food be your medicine, and your medicine food.
--Hippocrates

OR?

[edit]

[2] Does this source mention vitamin U? Of what relevance is this to this article? Suspect it may be WP:OR to imply this source is related to this topic. We let our sources do the research and make conclusions, we just quote them, we have no opinions of our own when we edit wikipedia. Lesion (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.237 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We means you and me. Who are we? Speak for yourself. It iz wun uv dhoze reviews (secondary sources) you want.
I do not have access to the original source, but this PubMed search suggests that the source does not even mention vitamin U. Furthermore oltipraz, dithiolethiones and dithiins that are mentioned in the source are chemically distinct from vitamin U. The only thing these substances have in common is that they contain sulfur. Hence the source is not relevant to this article. Boghog (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That iz if the merjer iz aksepted. Four objections need to be over-ruled before the merjer will be aksepted. 75.152.123.237 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations that were supplied in the Hepatology section (PMID 16082211, PMID 20128046, PMID 11201301) mentioned vitamin U. Hence the implications that vitamin U has beneficial effects in the liver is not supported by the supplied citations and hence the entire section amounts to WP:OR. I have therefore deleted the entire section. Boghog (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (see the example of caffeine there) and consistency with Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, and Vitamin K. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

material exactly duplicated and repeated from elsewhere in talk page

75.152.123.238 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not prone to doing the merjer, because I suspect that s-methyl-methionine will be shown az a downstream metabolite of I3C, at which point there might be a race to find out whether I3C haz more effects on microbes, which it probably duz.
To believe it makes it true, therefore it's brain fart.

75.152.123.238 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the merjer actually requires deleting content from MMSC, because the chembox would be confusing: It would lead people into thinking that Vitamin U wuz one compound. That iz my second reason not to do the merjer; lost content.
QUANDO OMNI FLUNKUS MORITATI (when all else fails, play dead)
--Red Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.123.237 (talk)

I have striked the comments you have transcluded from other users, from a historic discussion. As you say, do not speak for other people. "Votes" (not that it is purely a matter of numbers) from previous discussions do not "count" in a subsequent consensus. I have already addressed why WP:COMMONNAME is an erroneous reason to oppose this merge. We use the most commonly used scientific name. Also, please do not copy and paste your comments from earlier in the discussion, thank you. Lesion (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional vitamins are not a single chemical, they come in several forms. According to our best sources so far, vitamin U is a single chemical, therefore it is doubly appropriate to use the chemical formula as the article name. Lesion (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.123.237 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be more relevant to your position, people do not look up any of the vitamins by their chemical name. Some people do. Chemists and curious people might want to look up a particular version of cyanocobalmin. There's a methylated kind, for instance. Such people might wonder if it's more easily assimilated. The vast majority of people, though, because it's easy to remember, and easy to type, will look up "vitamin b12", which should link to all of the variations.
Man who dance in crowded ballroom, dance cheek to cheek with woman behind him.
75.152.123.237 (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheney's experiments were on cabbage juice. Anything in cabbage juice with beneficial effects, especially with beneficial effects on the bowels iz fair game. That includes fibre. Education duz not equal common sense. When the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining wikipedia, ignore them. One man plus courage iz a majority.
I do not think this argument is particularly valid, since the traditional vitamins have both a parent page titled "vitamin B" etc and each a series of subarticles about the different forms. Here there is only a single form, or so our currently provided reliable sources imply. I searched for a "molecular biology MOS" to settle this, but couldn't find one, so I will alert wikproject molecular biology about this article to see what they say. Lesion (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.123.237 (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"sources"? Only dictionaries. They were not provided with evidence to the contrary that S-Methylmethionine iz the only chemical in cabbage with a beneficial effect. Either that, or they were TOLD that Methyl methionine sulphonium chloride iz the end rezult of ALL methyl donors in cabbage, which it izn't, by someone who spoke of something he did not know. (I am guessing at this point, so hopefully I hav covered all reasonable possibilities).
Davis's Dictum: Problems that go away by themselves, come back by themselves.

Correction, 4 sources:

  • National Library of Medicine - Medical Subject Headings. Lists vitamin U with synonyms Methylmethioninesulfonium Chloride and S-Methylmethionine [3]
  • NCI thes (preferred name) Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride, synonyms: Vitamin U, S-Methymethionine Chloride, Ardesyl, Cabagin U. [4]
  • secondary source "Vitamin U, also known as S-methyl methionine" [5]
  • secondary source "S-methylmethionine, also known as Vitamin U" [6]

And I emphasize that I haven't even searched for further evidence. 1 of these is a paper I had already read and remembered something from, and the other sources have been provided by other editors in a short space of time when these issues were first raised. Strongly suspect far more secondary sources which conform to the above could easily be found. Again, I suggest that you remove the content of this article that is based on primary sources, and find suitable secondary sources to support it. Why have you not done this? Could it be that there are no secondary sources to be found to support these views? This is a breach of encyclopedia wide policy about using primary sources to write an article. We should definitely not be using them to over-rule secondary sources. Your argument "the secondary sources are wrong" is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a medium for you to carry out your own reviews of the primary sources. If you want to carry out original research, do it elsewhere. Lesion (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.237 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did they come to the same conclusion?
Doctor Frankenstein wuz never lonely, because he wuz good at making friends.
Respectfully, if "we" remove the primary sources (as we should do), then all that supports that statement is your own opinion, which is also by the way not an acceptable source. Lesion (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
material added to talk page with no suggestion as to how to improve the article
75.152.123.237 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imajinary Guide to Orijinal Research on Wikipedia.
Polaroids are what Eskimos get from straining too much.

Please could you read the guidelines on talk page use: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Stop using "wikipedia's policies are wrong" in this discussion. If you disagree with a policy, I have told you before to raise it on the talk page of the relevant talk page. The validity of the policies themselves does not come into this discussion, merely how they apply to the issues here. Lesion (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.237 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "wikipedia's policy's are wrong". If you will use quotations, then you will write what I wrote in verbatim. I refined policies to how they are enforced in practice: I delineated some of the more danjerous areas of wikipedia.
A statesman iz a dead politician. We need more statesmen!

Primary research

[edit]

Medical content needs to be based on secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Removing primary stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The next issue is that some of the remaining sources do not mention Vitamin U. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The page haz no problem with primary sources. That iz what pub med is about. It's peer-reviewed journals, including WHEN they became peer-reviewed. Someone deleted a review I pointed to that wuz a SECONDARY SOURCE.

I would like to point out that if we merge to either S-Methylmethionine or Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride, then if the deleted source contains either of those terms rather than vitamin U specifically, then maybe they might not need to be deleted. Lesion (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge articles

[edit]

We have three articles for the exact same thing per a very reliable source [7]. Thus we need to merge S-Methylmethionine, Vitamin U and Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride. The only real question remaining is which term of these three do we go with.

  1. Support merge to S-MethylmethionineDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • 100% agree we should not have 2-3 individual pages for the same chemical, but not sure which should be the article and which should be the redirects. On pubmed (probably even more crude for this example than for deciding the most notable name for a disease), "S-Methylmethionine"=113 [8] , "Vitamin U"=144, and "Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride"=13. Above it was suggested that since the other vitamins have parent articles named vitamin A, vitamin B etc then the vitamin U article should follow this. However, these are all groups of chemicals or so I understand, and here we are dealing with a single chemical and so it could be argued to use the chemical name rather than vitamin U. It would be good to get the opinion of someone who has experience writing molecular biology articles. That wikiproject does not seem to have a MOS to use here. Is vitamin U really recognized as a vitamin in the traditional sense of the term? I note that it is not on the vitamin template, maybe it should be added to that if it is widely recognized as a vitamin. Lesion (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of it called vit U until now. Usually called SMM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with either of these two, S-Methylmethionine or Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so technically it is not a vitamin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that a few, possibly several, compounds were once classified (and then declassified) as vitamins, partially perhaps related to a some hype. For example, certain flavonoids were once called Vitamin P. So directing Vitamin U into SMM poses no problem, in fact we would be doing readers a favor.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the vitamin U page has both the template:vitamin (I added today) and the category:vitamins. So should these be removed? Lesion (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is also a vitamin F, vitamin G, vitamin H, ... vitamin T according to some people (at which point I stop searching pubmed). So it seems that some researchers use the term vitamin as a buzz word for just about anything rather than to refer to the definition of vitamin in the strict sense of the word. I suppose it markets their research topic more glamorously than some dry chemical formula. However, it can't be denied that "vitamin U" has slightly more pubmed hits in this case. Perhaps the article could benefit from a note that it is not a real vitamin (probably need a ref to say this). Lesion (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.123.237 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin U iz a vitamin for people with crohn's disease. It might also be a vitamin for people with psoriasis, like me. I might've caused myself chemogenic Crohn's disease by treating my pain with NSAIDS. That probably made my psoriasis worse.
Betty Crocker was a flour child.
All the vitamin talk is moot if we merge into S-Methylmethionine. In the expanded SMM, we would mention that this stuff has been called a vitamin U. SMM is big deal in biochemistry, vitamin U is an inappropriately hypey-name, was my impression--Smokefoot (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This iz not a merjer.

[edit]

75.152.123.237 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It iz a deletion. WP:MEDRS haz no problem with primary research. It iz just a bias toward buttressing with secondary sources and reviews wherever possible. I do not trust user:Boghog's jujment of what iz primary research.

To do a merjer:

  1. Pick the most accessible name.
  2. Move all content from an extremely similar article to the better-named article.
  3. Copy the entire talk page of the inferior article to the better-named article.
  4. Redirect the inferior article to the complete article.

Energize, said Kirk, and a pink drummer bunny appeared.

Pubmed tells us what is and is not a secondary source and is very reliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was using primary sources to contradict secondary sources. In fact, there were all primary sources until other editors started adding secondary sources recently.
75.152.123.237 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the plural, then you should realize that I am almost the only researcher on this article. The only thing I did not support iz two notes about sulphoraphane, and recently, a very technical review. Putting in other chemicals duz not contradict any source. It just adds chemicals to the arsenal in brassicaceae.
Mally wuz born to shop.
Also, several of the primary sources also did not use the term "vitamin U" and therefore it could be considered OR to suggest that those papers are of relevance to vitamin U.
75.152.123.237 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hallmark pieces of research in this field were on cabbage juice, therefore anything in cabbage iz fair game. That includes isothiocyanates, indoles, and glucosinolates. In the version of this article's lead that I tried to resurrect, I did not make any conclusions like this: s-methylmethionine iz not the only synonym for Vitamin U.
Planning is the substitution of error for chaos.
--Anonymous
The source would need to make this link for us.
75.152.123.237 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link duz not need to be made. It would be nice. It would be icing on the cake if somebody at Cochrane Reviews said that Vitamin U includes things other than MMSC, or that Vitamin U includes anything in cabbage but other vitamins.
Barium: What you do if CPR fails.
Checking the "reviews" filter in the pubmed search window will bring up only sources marked as reviews when you search, and this can be helpful when finding secondary sources to edit wikipedia with. It's not perfect, e.g. it still shows results like "syndrome blah blah, a case report and review of the literature" which we shouldn't really be using for wikipedia. Lesion (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.123.237 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although case histories are pretty minor, that iz what a review means, except for the "blah blah" part. You can hope to get more out of a university textbook only because textbooks are for lay people. IOW, reviews are (often) harder to read than textbooks.
To know and enjoy what you are good at iz three blessings.
What are with these bits "Mally wuz born to shop.". And why does the IP sign before they write? Hard to figure out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isothiocyanates, diindolylmethanes, sulforaphane, and glucosinolates ≠ Vitamin U. Hence these other phytochemicals are not within the scope of this article. All these chemicals are however found in cruciferous vegetables and may very well have health benefits (e.g., cancer prevention). Hence I would suggest a much more appropriate location for this material is in the Cruciferous_vegetables#Clinical_significance section. Boghog (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.123.237, Boghog's suggestion sounds like a much more appropriate place for the content that was deleted from here, but please bare in mind to try and use secondary sources in preference to primary sources wherever possible. Where there is no secondary source, it probably shouldn't be included. Regarding the OR, please just read WP:OR and you will see descriptions very similar to what was happening on this article next to "do not do this" or words to that effect. You call yourself a researcher, and I don't think this is a good attitude when editing Wikipedia. Respectfully, please just let the sources do the thinking. If you want to carry out OR, Wikipedia is not the place but there are many other places where this is fine. Having said that, people would welcome your contributions here if you edited in accordance with the policies. This discussion is descending again into questioning the validity of the policies, and this is not the place for that. Try the talk page of the relevant policies if want to propose a change to them, but in all honesty these policies have evolved over many years to be fit for purpose and they are unlikely to change significantly. Finally, it is confusing to pull apart the comments of other editors, it messes up the signatures and it becomes hard to understand who said what. I would use quotations or paraphrase the comments of other editors if I wanted to refer to their words in my own comment. Lesion (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Case reports should not be used, the policy states to avoid these. This includes sourcing content from the "review of the literature" part of the case report. If you don't want to use textbooks, that's fine, I have come across a few other editors who never use them deliberately, but there is no problem using them according to policy. Some editors say "don't overuse tertiary sources", but I don't see this written in the policies. Anyway, most of my textbooks include lists of references at the end of each chapter, and I often note primary sources in these. Unless I am confused, this would make these textbooks secondary rather than tertiary sources, so they are fine to use imo. Lesion (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep adding stuff, but when you say you did not contradict any secondary source, suggesting that vitamin U is more than what the secondary sources say it is (i.e. one chemical) is contradicting them. You still have no secondary source to state that vitamin U is several chemicals, and therefore this opinion has no place here, especially in over-ruling what the secondary sources are saying. So until someone shows me a reliable secondary source that says vitamin U is not a synonym but a can refer to anything in cabbage that is not other vitamins, I consider this matter closed. Lesion (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, medical claims must be backed up by secondary sources. The Cruciferous_vegetables#Cancer section already contains a number of high quality review articles which support the potential health benefits of cruciferous phytochemicals. This standard must be maintained. Boghog (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Line for Darth Vader in Star Wars to sanitize: "(Exhale, Inhale) Luke, you are my bastard!"
They are not potential health benefits. That iz a weasel word, and it duz not belong in articles. WP:MEDRS says that in vivo (in life) iz better than in vitro (in glass). There iz a {{MEDRS}} template for tagging work that you want a secondary source for. That duzn't mean there iz a secondary source for it. For example, the part on baby colic will not get support from pubmed, today. If you read breastmilk, then you will understand that it's quite possible for food to affect the taste of milk, though. WP:MEDRS duz not require secondary sources for medical claims.75.152.116.193 (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contents [hide] 
1 Definitions
2 Basic advice 
2.1 Respect secondary sources
2.2 Summarize scientific consensus
2.3 Assess evidence quality
2.4 Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies
2.5 Use up-to-date evidence
2.6 Use independent sources
3 Choosing sources 
3.1 Biomedical journals
3.2 Books
3.3 Medical and scientific organizations
3.4 Popular press
3.5 Other sources
4 Searching for sources
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading

Merged

[edit]

Have merged to S-Methylmethionine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin U

[edit]

Cabbage and potato conation vitamin U that use for duodenal ulcer 37.73.156.111 (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vitamin_U&oldid=1201606001"