Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 1 July 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Health and fitness Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More visual representation

I would love for someone to think of (and implement :) a more visual representation of the concept that inspired me to build this table in the first place: a map showing foods with taxonomic boundaries superimposed. the large taxonomic regions would thus pop out. problems: Eupedia 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

problem: choice of area metric

such a map requires a decision on which scalar quantity would map to surface area on the food map. kilograms/year consumed per year by humans? humans and domestic animals? economic value? area cultivated? etc. Eupedia 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not multiple maps?--Curtis Clark 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! BTW, thanks for all the awesome cleanup. Eupedia 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

problem: space-filling geometry

this is math problem: how do you project a "weighted dendrogram" (i made up this term by analogy to graph theory, but there might be a better term already existing -- anyone?) onto a contiguous plane? that is, assume by analogy that each food is like a country, each with it's size determined by the problematic metric discussed above. then, all of these food-countries would need to be packed together into a map of the food-world, with no white space (all land belonging to one country or another). easy enough so far, since the borders can be made to have any shape, but here is the clincher, and why it is a math problem: does there exist, for any weighted dendrogram, an area-mapped plane packing that preserves the connectivity of the dendrogram? Eupedia 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the nature of a map implies a network of connectivity rather than a tree. But then I'm a biologist, not a topologist. I wonder instead about using a cladogram, and weighting the area of the branches by the measures you mentioned. This would be somewhat analogous to the sensory homunculus of neurobiology.--Curtis Clark 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

LOVED the sensory homunculus. i think a cladogram is a subset of dendrogram (tho i could be wrong), but your point is well taken: cladograms from genetic barcoding are an example of such a weighting, tho they do it with length, while i was envisioning area. hmmm. Eupedia 06:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

sweet! i just figured it out. there is another way to showing a branched hierarchy that i have seen in a piece of software called diskvision. you can download it for free and try it out. it shows the space taken up by various files/folders on your hard drive by area. it's awesome. the link shows a picture of how it looks. i know the guy because i suggested a mod to his program (to show number of files), which he implemented. so "all" that's needed now is a dataset. where can i get a list that shows class, order, family, genus, species, and variety for all important foods? Eupedia 07:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetize the table by common name

I think the table should be alphabetized, and my first thought was by scientific name, but then I wondered if common name might not be more appropriate. Thoughts?--Curtis Clark 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

definitely not, and here's why: the reason i made this table was to show the intensely close grouping of many foods into few taxa. this is shown by sorting taxonomically, but would be lost sorting on common name. now i could see an argument for moving the common name to the right-most row, if someone wanted to do that... Eupedia 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But that is part of my point: the important food species seem to be a few isolated dots and clumps in a vast sea of non-edible or non-interesting species. Within Brassicaceae, for example, most of them seem to be in one single genus, Brassica. So, by listing only the edible species, the table gives a somewhat distorted view of the situation. Here is a question one may ask: is the number of food species in a family a more or less fixed fraction of the total number of species in that family? If not, is Brassicaceae "food-rich" or "food poor", in relative terms? Jorge Stolfi 05:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint, but it falls apart statistically in that the decision, even in a phylogenetic system, of what one calls a family is at base arbitrary, so it's not possible to make a convincing null model to test against. If one chose a family equivalent to the accepted subfamily Brassiceae, it would be food-rich. On the other hand, the broad interpretation of lumping Brassicaceae, Cleomaceae, and Capparaceae in a single family would render it food-poor.--Curtis Clark 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Brassicaceae

Apparently the only reason to group these vegetables is that they all belong to the Brassicaceae family. If that is true, then the table should be moved to a section of Brassicaceae. Health information should be given in the articles of individual species, and therefore discussion of that aspect at the family level both superfluous and probably impractical. Jorge Stolfi 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

better, Merge into Brassica

On second thoughts, only a few of the "Cruciferous vegetables" lie outside the Brassica genus. So it would make more sense to drop those few exceptions and move the table to the Brassica article. Jorge Stolfi 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat oppose:

1. Only eight species of Brassica are represented in the table, versus six non-Brassica species. This is in no sense a Brassica article; in fact one of its values is to point out the cruciferous vegetables that are not Brassica.

But Brassica accounts for 26 entries; and the other 7 are quite different plants, foodwise speaking, so I fail to see the point of discussing them in the same article. If you include watercress, why not not include lettuce and asparagus, too? Foodwise, they are more "Brassica-like" than watercress! Said another way: as a food or agricultural science article, that set of species does not make sense; as an article about the family, there are no nutritional or agricultural attributes that are shared by all species, so the article will never be more than just a list of 35 "random" edible plants. Jorge Stolfi 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's ironic that you inflate the Brassica total by including all the cultivars, which are important only as food, and then deprecate the importance of food.

Certain plant families are heavily used as food:

• Poaceae: not only all the grains, but also bamboo shoots, baby corn, lemongrass, and sugarcane.
• Fabaceae: The seeds of many species are eaten (beans, peas, peanuts). Are peanuts more like filberts than they are like peas?
• Rosaceae: Are strawberries, raspberries, plums, and apples all that similar except for being rosaceous?
• Asteraceae: You mentioned lettuce. Include sunflower "seeds" and artichoke hearts, and you already have a varied group.

In each case, all the foods belong to a single plant family. In no sense is that random. And this is an encyclopedia.--Curtis Clark 15:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am obviously unable to express myself clearly. No one is denying that the other genera of the Brassicaceae include many plants that are important "foodwise". The point is that it doesn't make sense to discuss "all the edible plants of family X" in one article, because (a) there is practically no food- or agriculture-related attribute that holds for all those plants, so one would end up discussing each plant or each genus separately (which is best done on their respective pages) and (b) the really important food/cutlivation groupings usually cut across many families. So, for example, it would make a lot of sense to have an article on "grain crop species" or "forage crop species" or "edible species adapted to dry conditions" or "edible species with high vitamin C content" — irrespective of family boundaries. It would make sense also to discuss "genetics of the Brassicaceae", "metabolic processes of the Brassicaceae", "cellular anatomy of the Brassicaceae", "breeding and hybridization strategies for the Brassicaceae", etc. On the other hand, having an article on "edible Brassicaceae species" is no different than "edible species whose names use the letter N", or "edible species with pink flowers". That is: for the purposes of discussing nutritonal and cultivation properties, these three sets are equally arbitrary and hence uninteresting. Makes sense? Jorge Stolfi 16:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true - what holds cruciferous vegetables together is the following: "Cruciferous vegetables are one of the dominant food crops worldwide. Widely considered to be healthful foods, they are high in vitamin C and soluble fiber and contain multiple nutrients with potent anti-cancer properties: diindolylmethane, sulforaphane and selenium. Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have recently discovered that 3,3'-Diindolylmethane in Brassica vegetables is a potent modulator of the innate immune response system with potent anti-viral, anti-bacterial and anti-cancer activity."

I find those attributes interesting and not arbitrary.

I understand your point more clearly now, and I disagree; it's emphatically different from "letter N", since plant families are (or at least plant taxonomists intend that they be) natural groups. It can be inferred that all species of the Brassicaceae are descendents of a common ancestor not shared with species outside the family. Food items in the Brassicaceae have a basic similarity in that they are all members of that natural group – they all have the same genetic heritage. This naturally influences their cellular structure, growth forms, ability to be selectively bred, biogeography, and phytochemistry, all of which influence their use as food plants. This is hardly arbitrary or uninteresting.

I would expect so myself, but unfortunately Mother Nature had other plans. If you look at any list of species of a clade (including Brassicaceae), you will see that even within the same genus -- no, even within the same species! -- one can find plants that are as different from each other as day from night, food- and culitvation-wise. One cultivar has big edible tubers, the next one has no tubers but lots of seeds good for oil, the next one is highly toxic, the next one lives in arid climates, the other is semi-aquatic, etc.. On the other hand, you find many plants from very different families that produce red sweet berry-like things to attract birds, and hence are interesting for jam or ice-ceam makers. The fact is that *some* very basic things *do* follow taxonomic lines, but "end features" like edibility or growing requirements do not. Jorge Stolfi 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And yet the above-ground parts of few (none?) Solanaceae are edible, but those of most Brassicaceae are (although many are not palatable). One of the things that makes evolutionary biology continually interesting is the contrast between history and adaptation.--Curtis Clark 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic, but for what it's worth, the list of plants with edible leaves has Capsicum annuum, Capsicum frutescens, Solanum aethiopicum, Solanum americanum, Solanum incanum, Solanum indicum, Solanum macrocarpon, Solanum melongena, Solanum nigrum, Solanum nodiflorum, Solanum scabrum, Solanum sessiliflorum, Solanum spirale, Solanum torvum, Solanum uporo, Solanum wendlandii, Solanum xanthocarpum, Nicotiana tabacum, and Physalis angulata. Leafeater 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, those general properties are worth mentioning in the family articles. (I suppose you mean stems and leaves, since many Solanaceae have edible fruits, e.g. tomatoes and wolf apples.) BTW, are the toxic substanes of the Solanaceae chemically related?

It's been a while since I've looked into this, but I seem to remember one or a small number of classes of alkaloids being the main poisons.--Curtis Clark 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

None of this is to say that foods couldn't or shouldn't be arranged in other ways as well (and in fact they are). But arranging food by plant family is a common sorting device. Ethnobotanical lists and botanical works on herbs and spices (among others) are characteristically arranged by family. When I teach plant families, I ordinarily refer to the economically important plants (when they exist) to give the students a sense of the family from plants they may have already encountered. And even technical floras often list economically important members of each family.--Curtis Clark 16:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Last year I noticed that many clade articles listed all the species under that clade. So the family article would have a big tree, down to species level; each subfamily article would have a subtree of that tree, again down to species; and so on. That seems nice for the reader, but when you need to change one species, you have to edit a dozen articles insetad of one. It seesm that people are now trimming down those trees, so that the article of each clade only lists the nodes at the next level, not its entire subtree.

After many such experiences in various contexts, I have learned the following "rule of thumb": if one lists the same imformation N times in a database, updates will cost N^2 times as much, and there will be N^2 more inconsistencies among all those copies. In other words, replicating information forthe sake of the user is counter-productive: instead, one should put each information in one place only -- and give the user a good search tool.

This is a very good point, and I've been bothered by the same thing. Search, though, doesn't solve everything; when I was a child, I would sit down and read volumes of an encyclopedia, seeing connections that a search would never provide.--Curtis Clark 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In this case, that rule says that one should discuss the food properties of individual cultivars in their respective articles, and not even mention them in the higher clades (unless something can be said of the clade itself. Jorge Stolfi 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And yet there is a case to be made for being easily able to look up the food articles for a single family. How about a general treatise in the family discussion (___aceae contains many edible members because of blah blah blah) and a category (say, "Edible members of the Brassicaceae") to accommodate the efforts that people such as Eupedia go to in assembling all the references.--Curtis Clark 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing my contribution! It took a lot of learning for me to get the table right, etc. etc. (i have now applied/expanded this to dental notation of all things, to very nice effect, IMO). but to the question at hand, if i may weigh in: i started this list as an excel spreadsheet a year ago when i noticed how many important foods seemed to be so densely arranged phylogenetically, once i completed it, i was blown away! in this spirit, trimming it to brassica only would leave the most dramatic effect, even at risk of losing completeness, since, the ratio foods/taxon (assuming taxon is defined recursively) is certainly higher for brassica than for brassicaceae. furthermore, who's to say i shouldn't have gone up to brassicales? then again, if there is a convention already for grouping families, then perhaps we should stick with it. my main message here: despite being the author, i am flexible, and see it both ways, and will not be offended by or attached to either implementation. Eupedia 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The "Use as food" section of Brassicaceae is inadequate. Perhaps merging this in to replace that section would be useful, but calling this "Main article" in that section (per Misplaced Pages practice) would also be useful. If this were merged, the Brassicaceae article would be mainly food and a genus list, which is not necessarily a bad thing.--Curtis Clark 05:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would remove that section from Brassicaceae altogether, or reduce it to one paragraph like "this family contains the important food genera Brassica (including cabbage, cauliflower, canola, and over 20 other common vegetables and oil crops), Nasturtium (watercress), ..." Jorge Stolfi 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Or you could look at all the plant families with edible members and bring those sections up to a common standard.--Curtis Clark 15:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cavello Nero

I've come across this plant, seems a bit like English Spinach. But I can't find any real info on it. Perhaps it has a different common name? See . Also mentioned at . Does anyone know anything else about it? peterl 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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 . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What does "cruciferous" in this context mean?

Seriously, I can't find why these vegetables are called "cruciferous." What is the distinguishing characteristic? Simply because they are members of the family Brassicaceae? And if so, what does being members of this family have to do with bearing a cross? Neither this page nor the Brassicaceae page has any information on the subject. Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found my answer.

Too Erudite

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have discovered that 3,3'-diindolylmethane in Brassica vegetables is a strong androgen receptor antagonist in human prostate cancer cells.

Is that good or bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.239.10 (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically that is good since androgen receptor antagonists (i.e., antiandrogens) may be reduce the incidence of prostate cancer and would slow proliferation of prostate cancer cells in pre-existing prostate cancer. This has now been clarified in the article. Boghog (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words

The word "may" was intentionally used in several sections of this article. Preclinical and epidemiological evidence suggests but does not prove chemicals contained in brassica vegetables have anticancer properties. This caution is supported by the supplied sources. Hence the use of the word "may" is fully justified in this context. Concerning drug metabolism, consumption brassica vegetables may reduce drug exposure below (or possibly increase above) the optimal range. This depends on the drug, the individual, and the amount of vegetables consumed. Again, the use of the word "may" is fully justified in this context and is not a weasel word. Finally mentioning the effects of smoking is off topic and does not belong in this article. Boghog (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please carefully read the following source that clearly states that the anticancer effects of these compounds in humans is not clear:

• "Cruciferous Vegetables and Cancer Prevention". Fact Sheet. National Cancer Institute, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 06/07/2012. Some of these compounds have shown anticancer effects in cells and animals, but the results of studies with humans have been less clear. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hence the adjectives "may" and "potential" are a reasonable way of describing the anticancer effects in humans. Boghog (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also please carefully read the following:

However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.
— WP:WEASEL

As the supplied reliable sources also used caution, it is fully justified and in fact required that the text in the article is also cautious. Boghog (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

: In response to this edit with the Supporting removal of weasel words with a review. The review that was added was this:

• Kim MK, Park JH (2009). "Conference on "Multidisciplinary approaches to nutritional problems". Symposium on "Nutrition and health". Cruciferous vegetable intake and the risk of human cancer: epidemiological evidence". Proc Nutr Soc. 68 (1): 103–10. doi:10.1017/S0029665108008884. PMID 19061536. Brassicas, against cancer risk, the current epidemiological evidence suggests that cruciferous vegetable consumption may reduce the risk only of gastric and lung cancers. However, there is at present no conclusive evidence that the consumption of cruciferous vegetables attenuates the risk of all other cancers. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The review uses the word "may". Hence it is required that the text in the article that is supported by this review also use similar caution. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Firestone's Law of Forecasting: Chicken Little only haz to be right once.
The problem with the statement iz that it iz trying to make a statment about all other cancers, and I do not think anybody would expect crucifera to reduce your risk of anything but stomach and maybe liver cancer. I would not use a statement like that, because it iz being too demanding of these chemicals.75.152.127.203 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Deja Stew: A familiar feeling in your stomach.
It is good that you read articles with disbelief. It is bad that you write your disbelief into wikipedia articles, because then I can be left with uncertainty of which I do not understand the source or cause. Rather than disbelieve the evidence, and read it for myself, then, I might discard it, and just accept your disbelief. There is no explicit caution about preclinical or epidemiological data. Very few documents attack their own credibility. The only time "may" iz not a weasel word in this document, iz in the note about baby colic. It does not apply to all babies: They might habituate in the womb. It carries a risk ratio. I hav seen no modes of action for all of the things mentioned in epidemiological data about baby colic, not in low-level, detailed biochemistry, and the pubmed reference supporting moderation of some food does not get into modes of action. Most of the enzymes I mentioned from one document are not in wikipedia. If you see evidence that ITC or indoles ever inhibit liver enzymes, then you should put that in as contrary evidence. Smoking is on topic concerning CYP1A2. It iz an example that made a long, highly qualified sentence understandable and terse. Weasel words and sentence length inhibit comprehension, sometimes making sentences utterly meaningless, discouraging controversy where it belongs, on talk pages, on USENET, and in email. 75.152.124.222 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is bad that you write your disbelief into wikipedia articles – I am not writing disbelief into this article. I am echoing the caution in the supplied sources. Doing otherwise would be WP:OR. Boghog (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Forgive them, for they know not what they do!", said Jesus crossly.
Edit conflicts should be mediated by yourself. If you are to tired to do the work, then you should discard your own edit and do it again. In your rush to do a reversion, which I rarely do, you deleted some evidence of mine. Please put it back. You can use my quotation or your own words to explain it.75.152.124.222 (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In this particular edit, the source PMID 19061536 is a high quality review, although is was slightly misplaced since it only briefly mentions effects on hormones. I have restored that citation but put it in a more appropriate location. The second source PMID 12618594 concerning smoking and as I already indicated above, is off-topic and does not belong in this article. Boghog (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Zen law-makers pass transcendental legislation. A buddhist monk told a hot dog vendor to make him one with everything.
We established that you do not know an category:indoles when you see the chemical formula for one on your talk page. In your rush to do a reversion, you deleted jeneral terms for the chemicals involved in the low level modes of action against cancer that Brassicaceae hav in life.75.152.124.222 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand the above paragraph. Please clarify. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary Weasel words should be suppressed. If they are in reviews, then resolution comes from primary sources. – The supplied secondary sources use caution and therefore we also must use caution. Boghog (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not adjust your mind. The fault lies with reality.
To use caution in this case invites disbelief of primary sources. If there iz contrary evidence, then you should supply it. 75.152.124.222 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The secondary sources review the primary sources both of which use caution. Hence we also must use caution. I already have supplied the evidence above. Please re-read it. Also please read WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:LISTEN. Boghog (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources concerned deal with medical claims. WP:MEDRS is very strict about what constitutes a reliable source for a medical claim. Primary sources are rarely appropriate. It's better to use a secondary source for the claims concerned, and make only statements that are supported by the secondary source. If the secondary source uses weasel words (which is often the case for medical secondary sources can't come to a firm conclusion from the results of the primary literature), then so should we. Weaselly secondary sources are better than primary sources per MEDRS. Plantdrew (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nuke the unborn communist gay whales for Jesus!
I hope this means that Boghog iz sleeping. Competence is required iz a much more difficult standard to measure. Neither medical editorials, nor clarity are policy. I am not upsetting a consensus. I am finding one in primary sources. If you hav contrary evidence, then you should supply it, because this document makes conclusions. No reliable cure iz probably for cancer, yet some people do not get it. Clarity iz important. We are here to take input and deliver output to uneducated masses. If they cannot understand our conclusiohs, then they will ignore us. I hate sounding like I am holding things back. Write with the fewest possible words, or people will certainly ignore you. Write with the clearest possible words, or people will certainly misunderstand you.75.152.124.222 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The following is Misplaced Pages policy:

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
— No original research

It is not acceptable to reinterpret the conclusions of a source to match your preconceptions. If you write "X prevents cancer" and the secondary source says "X may prevent cancer", this is a violation of a core Misplaced Pages policy. You also must write "X may prevent cancer". If you cannot accept this core principle of Misplaced Pages, then Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. Boghog (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS, it is never acceptable to use a primary source to contradict the conclusions of a high quality secondary source. There are numerous high quality secondary sources that discuss the potential anticancer properties of cruciferous vegetables and these sources are already included in the article. It is essential that the contents of this article reflect the conclusions of these secondary sources even if primary sources may have come to a different conclusion. Boghog (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Violense may solv wun problem, and it sowz dhu seedz for another.
Regarding weasel words, "may" also indicates speculation in this case, and regardless of where it comes from, I do not welcome speculation on wikipedia. I do not care about recency. I suspect you will find more enthuziazm that iz old for crucifera. I would like for the reviewer to be on pubmed. Here are the sources for which I recommend that you extract something other than a global conclusion about whether this article (and its children) describe anti-cancer properties:75.152.127.203 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "Cruciferous Vegetables and Cancer Prevention". Fact Sheet. National Cancer Institute, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 06/07/2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Minich DM, Bland JS (2007). "A review of the clinical efficacy and safety of cruciferous vegetable phytochemicals". Nutr. Rev. 65 (6 Pt 1): 259–67. doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2007.tb00303.x. PMID 17605302. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
3. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12618594, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12618594 instead.

OK, fine, I have deleted all health claims from this article. This is a far better solution than to continue this pointless discussion. Boghog (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What a botch!

As it stands now, the article is poor. Right in the opening paragraph there is an unsubstansiated, subjective assertion ("ITC tastes hot") about an apparent chemical compound, but who knows as there is no antecedent for this initialism. Up until now (I'm about to fix it) there is a purported complete sentence beginning with a lower case letter. Come on, people, this is about something important, not some nutjob conspiracy theories or the like, but something that millions of people eat every day. 166.152.32.247 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, weasel words are speculation

Beware of a Borg-again Christian. Reasoning with them is futile.
That duz not mean they are wrong. It means that keyword "may" should be taken out, somehow. Either by reducing the scope of the sentence or by taking it out, entirely.75.152.127.203 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The only acceptable way of taking out the word "may" is to delete the material entirely and that is what I have done. As I and others have repeatedly explained above, this is Misplaced Pages policy. Your refusal to accept Misplaced Pages policy is disruptive and needs to stop. If this continues, I will take this to the Administrators' noticeboard. Boghog (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

People being investigated for stealing art are often framed.
Yes, an absence of speculation iz wikipedia policy. No, WP:MEDRS, which iz pretty much everything we've been talking about, iz not policy: It iz a guideline. I deleted the material entirely. All that wuz necessary wuz deleting sentences containing "may", not all sections containing health claims.75.152.127.203 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is tough to do inventories in Afghanistan, because of the tally ban.
One uv your reviewers iz biased. They tried to attack the idea that Brassicaceae contain chemicals effective against all cancers other than lung and stomach. They did it with weasel words, so that they would not be found essentially incorrect. These vegetables contain chemicals effective against many cancers. They are not az effective in human subjects, because humans are not az compliant with treatment az animals. One uv your reviewers iz biased.75.152.127.203 (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"an absence of speculation iz wikipedia policy" – If reliable secondary sources only support uncertainty, there are only two choices. Reflect that uncertainty or delete the material entirely. That is Misplaced Pages policy. If you desire more definitive statements, the burden of proof is on you to supply reliable high quality secondary sources to support those definitive claims. To date, you have supplied none. Boghog (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Sniff.Horkh.Ptui." iz a way to appreciate fine art on a handkerchief.
How can you attack all of my sources at once!? You are effectively calling about twenty sources frauds, and that probably makes you a liar.75.152.127.203 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources that you added, none of which are WP:MEDRS compliant:

• PMID 16082211 – review of in vitro studies and brief mention of preliminary clinical studies
• PMID 20128046 – primary source, animal studies
• PMID 11201301 – review of animal studies, primary clinical study
• PMID 22514694 – primary source, in vitro study
• PMID 15246236 – primary source, in vitro study
• PMID 15856408 – primary source, in vitro study
• PMID 12032331 – primary source, in vitro study
• PMID 21548875 – primary source, animal and human study
• PMID 19334074 – primary source, animal study
• The one citation that you did add that was a high quality secondary source (PMID 19061536) stated "Brassicas, against cancer risk, the current epidemiological evidence suggests that cruciferous vegetable consumption may reduce the risk only of gastric and lung cancers. However, there is at present no conclusive evidence that the consumption of cruciferous vegetables attenuates the risk of all other cancers." Boghog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To become an electrician you have to pass a battery of tests.
Among sources in this article are reviews other than the sloppy attacks on primary sources that you want to use. A medrs banner hung over material in this article for most of a year.75.152.127.203 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
--Mitch Hedberg
That statment iz unusable, because it iz not falsifiable, which means that it iz not verifiable. If I use unverifiable statments, even if they come from Harvard, Oxford, and Shanghai at the same time, then I pollute wikipedia. I would be writing with the words of a politician, scared of being wrong, and so effectively saying nothing. If there iz contrary evidence, then show it.75.152.119.213 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing secondary sources that systematically review the evidence and conclude that consumption of cruciferous vegetables may reduce cancer incidence and leaving behind other sources that imply that cruciferous vegetables have anticancer properties is misleading and completely unacceptable. Either we include cautious language that cites the systematic reviews or we leave out this material entirely. Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, this is Misplaced Pages policy. Boghog (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pollydent: helps hold parrot's false teeth in.
The relevant sentence iz meaningless speculation, and it duzn't say that cruciferous vegetables may reduce cancer incidence. It says that cruciferous vejetebles may only reduce stomach and lung cancer. It iz not cautious language. It iz utterly meaningless and unusable speculation, so it duz not belong here. Only facts belong here. Things that may be false are not facts.75.152.127.203 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Our current state of knowledge is limited. This is a fact. You need to accept this.

The only two certainties in life are death and taxes.
— Mark Twain

Our current state of knowledge does not allow more definitive statements concerning the health advantages of consuming cruciferous vegetables, particularly with regard to their possible anticancer benefits. Since several high quality sources document that uncertainty and because the subject is notable, it is appropriate to include that uncertainty in a Misplaced Pages article. Boghog (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
--Isaac Asimov
If it cannot be shown to be false, then truth in it iz meaningless, so even the statement from {PMID 19061536) iz useless. Beyond that, these weasel-worded statements offer uncertainty without reason. If a reviewer wants to kritisize epidemiology, then let him do it. But trying to say that epidemiology iz the only support for the anti-cancer properties of these plants iz a lie.75.152.119.213 (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray iz now a seasoned veteran.
That quotation from Mark Twain iz annoying, because he wuz out of hiz field. He wuz not a scientist. He wuz an author uv fiction. He lived in dream worlds. Scientists are versed in mathematics and statistics, which they learn to trust. Twain said something very annoying about statistics. Yes, statistics are abused, corrupted, misunderstood, and therefore maligned. That duz not make all statistics into lies. And, are you not, Boghog, just proving my earlier assertion that you are reading facts in this article with disbelief, because you trust reviewers more than primary sources, according to a guideline that will never be policy? 75.152.119.213 (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is based on WP:PSTS. PSTS in turn is Misplaced Pages policy, and in particular:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
— WP:PSTS

If there are relevant high quality secondary sources, we should use them in preference to primary sources. That is Misplaced Pages policy. If you cannot accept this policy, then Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

When you see an open mind, you are probably attending an autopsy.
That iz what template:medrs says. That iz not what the policy quotation says, nor iz it an acceptable summary of what your quotation says. Even the nutshell disagrees with the template.75.152.119.213 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What I quoted above in the box is Misplaced Pages policy. That is what WP:PSTS says and not what WP:MEDRS says (although MEDRS says something similar). Please go back and reread it. Boghog (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A hole was found in a nudist camp wall. Police are looking into it.
It duz not tell you to delete primary sources if secondary sources are foggy.75.152.119.213 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are using primary sources to support conclusions that are contradicted by secondary sources, that is completely unacceptable. And that is exactly what you are doing by leaving in primary sources that suggest that these vegetables have anticancer properties while taking out secondary source that say the available evidence is inconclusive. You have exactly two choices: include the secondary sources and state that the evidence is inconclusive or take out the material entirely. You are also grossly misinterpreting WP:V. All that the verifiability policy requires is that the information contained in Misplaced Pages articles needs to be verified. If I state that something is not known with certainty and then support that statement with a reliable secondary source, then I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:V. Boghog (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The first one to call you a troll is a friend of Hitler.
--Diskumbuuberated quotation of Jay Litwyn.
Always question everything.
--Albert Einstein
I am trying to define foggy wording for you, so that you can evaluate secondary sources and prune them for bias. I know that this iz a subversive activity in asking you to think for yourself on wikipedia, and it 'should' be done. Are things that may be false facts?75.152.119.213 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason we use secondary sources is that they tend to be the least biased. Furthermore it is not acceptable to question the reliability of a secondary source in a Misplaced Pages article unless you have another secondary source that supports that doubt. One should of course maintain a healthy skepticism of any source. However at the end of the day, all material contained in Misplaced Pages articles must be supported by reliable sources and it is not acceptable to reinterpret the conclusions of those sources. Reinterpretation amounts to original research and hence violates a core Misplaced Pages policy. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep an open mind, and not at both ends.
I would apolojize for making a couple of statements more definite, except that would not tell you how important this iz to me. Orijinal research (synthesis, evaluation, analysis, descriptions of material used, exclusion criteria, tanjential questions) iz not a problem on talk pages, unless it makes its way, explicitly, into an article. You really cannot (and probably should not) avoid it. The first time you choose not to use material in an abstract, it may just be because you do not understand it. Eventually, you will exclude material only because the authors' interpretation iz novel. I welcome any kind of thought related to this article. A chinese wall iz between this article and its talk page, though. Everything here gets vetted the same way, so maybe I would stop my welcome at somebody pushing their own article from pub med. Yes, reinterpretation iz orijinal research. I hope you understand that condensing abstracts iz difficult to get right, and doing a good job of reaching people, and using safe assumptions in a condensation... Let's put it this way "no induction" goes out the window until you are done, fitting a context, and effectively saying nothing more than what your sources do, and what iz obvious. Sigh...Nothing iz obvious to some people. In a worst case scenario, I use more than one source for a sentence. Good copyediting (style) makes people understand more. Sometimes, it even scares them. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Little green men may inhabit your cupboards.". They do not, and the quoted statement iz still true. Speculation iz not welcome on wikipedia, because it iz not WP:V verifiable. It iz not verifiable, because it iz not falsifiable. You should refrain from making any jeneral or global statements about cancer prevention from any source, especially if those statements are equivocal.75.152.119.213 (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This uncertainty is not speculation, it is fact. If the consensus in the scientific and medical community as documented in the most recent secondary sources is uncertainty, then we must also reflect that uncertainty in this Misplaced Pages article. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Picard, you cheated...I'm impressed! Q
Facts and speculation are different things. The best kind of consensus iz unanimity. You do not hav unanimity. Your quotation of policy disallows evaluation of primary sources in articles from us. It duz not disallow evaluation of anything on talk pagez. Maybe it should disallow unreasoned, global or jeneral conclusions about masses of primary sources from others, and stick to numbers. I hav pointed out flaws in these summary rulings from secondary sources. One sentense did not attack enough kinds of evidence, and that sentence iz useless even in saying that "crucifers reduce risk of lung and stomach cancer", because the sentense iz always true, because it contains the word "may". Avoid these words, because they are almost always part of a lie: "All, Ever, Every, Never, and Any". One sentense broke that rule to write a truism (to speak of sentense fragments) regarding "all other cancers" -- nobody gets all other cancers, so how would you even test that? It's not verifiable, right there -- just in making the required study unfeasible. Both sentences contained a boundless escape clause in "may". Both sentences are speculation. Both sentences tell me that the reviewer wuz biased. If you put material on cancer and bowels back in the article, then you should add the caveat banner for speculation. "May or may not" iz a redundancy. Facts and speculation are different things. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. If it did, then it would be almost impossible to obtain consensus on anything. It is acceptable to present significant minority views as long as they are supported by reliable sources along side the majority view. However it is never acceptable to present only the minority view. This would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Boghog (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If the world did not suck, we would all fall off.
Facts are not a popularity contest. They are independent of Race, Creed, Color, Situation, Circumstance or Environment. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

...controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
— WP:UNDUE

He did not teL hiz mudher he ayt sum gluu. Hiz lips wer sealed.
This article wuz never based entirely on secondary sources, and when someone wrote a long sentence full of jumps and speculative interpretation, I provided a source for it, condensed it, and I made it easy to read and verify.75.152.119.213 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It is acceptable to supplement secondary sources with primary ones. However it is not acceptable to remove relevant high quality secondary sources leaving behind only primary ones, especially if the primary sources come to or imply a different conclusion. And again, uncertainty ≠ speculation. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Mechanics do it on fields and in time.
You can leave any sources in. I would comment-out a source first, with a reason, if I couldn't find anything useful in it, and that's a worst-case scenario. I hav no problem with letting people know that wikipedia iz at odds with some secondary sources, when they are interested in reading sources. However, I am probably at odds with WP:CHERRY in saying that some material iz not usable, especially global or jeneral conclusions. (Actually, no I am not. I would not ignore an article that said crucifers induced cancer, for instance. It's just not my style.) So, I might select something else to use in your sources, or I might find a review that iz contrary to another. However, I hav my doubts, because inconclusion asks for more money, and researchers get into the habit of asking for more money, and insecure about whether it will come. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

75, this joking tone is incredibly annoying. Give it a rest, please. Looie496 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Temporarily. Az I've said to Boghog once or thrice, though, if you are frustrated, then maybe you should just say that there iz no deadline, and trust that other people will take care of my fuck-ups.75.152.119.213 (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not understand the desire to use primary rather than secondary sources. This is undue weight "is antiproliferative of human prostate cancer cells" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=12665522 Our readers do not care about prostate cancer cells in a petri dish. A couple of research might care but not general readers. What people care about is prostate cancer. That occurs not in dishes but in people. Support the removal of the primary references.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• As a Misplaced Pages contributor who has cultivated a longtime professional interest in good, transparent reporting of health research , I find the insistent claim that the use of "may" in this sort of context is WP:WEASEL to be quite indefensible. As User:Boghog has patiently explained above it is completely normal to use modal expressions with "may" and "might" to qualify evidence that is only suggestive. I also agree that the "joking tone" (including the deliberate substitutions of the letter 'z' for the letter 's', as in "there iz no deadline" ) is "incredibly annoying" (disruptive?) and is wasting the time and energies of contributors here who are trying to help freely provide high-quality health information to readers of Misplaced Pages around the world. Surely, it is ethically wrong to use WP:DEADLINE as a justification for willful overinterpetation of the available evidence, especially in fields such as the health sciences. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• Top-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class plant articles
• Mid-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles
• C-Class Health and fitness articles
• Low-importance Health and fitness articles
• WikiProject Health and fitness articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages