Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 17 April 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Umami article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

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

Template:WikiProject MCB Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Umami article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Foods rich in umami

You usually don't list food rich in saltiness/sweetness. Are you sure you are still talking about a taste rather than an ingredient? There should be a difference. --2.245.110.69 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

third paragraph of lede

The current contents of the lede's third paragraph is this:

People taste umami through receptors for glutamate, commonly found in its salt form as the food additive monosodium glutamate (MSG). For that reason, scientists consider umami to be distinct from saltiness.

For which reason is it distinct from saltiness? It's distinct from saltiness because it's found in its salt form? Or because it's MSG instead of NaCl? I looked at the reference provided--an NPR article--but that article isn't covering the explanation. I propose that the resolution should be to remove the second sentence altogether (but keep the reference, if it remains in context) or to improve the segue from the first sentence by identifying the reason. (Apparently I left this unsigned?) D. F. Schmidt (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The “salt” in “salt form” is not the same salt as salt taste. I have added a link to help clarify this. Does this help? I don’t know if some further wording changes would also help. It reads fine to me but I can see how the two meanings of salt could be confused.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, but what I'm suggesting is that saltiness be replaced with a more succinct word. (I already knew that salt is a chemical term and I knew what the salt form is.) Since this is already a somewhat esoteric topic anyway (umami and monosodium glutamate are not traditional English words), I'm not sure I know a more appropriate word or wording to replace saltiness, but maybe include mention that the chloride in table salt has different receptors with which we associate "saltiness". Using the word saltiness in a discussion of two chemical salts sounds like it's dumbing things down to a useless level. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph was awkward and misleading (or even leading: why did it focus on saltiness as a contrast?). I rewrote it. Feel free to improve. Strebe (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "Umami taste receptor identified". Nature. Retrieved 26 June 2013.
2. Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter ... and Umami, NPR

lede sentence re kanji

Second paragraph had:

"This particular writing was chosen by Japanese chemist Kikunae Ikeda from umai (うまい) "delicious" and mi (味) "taste". The kanji 旨味 are used for a more general sense of a food as delicious."

How do (or does) kanji relate to the previous sentence? If adding this info back, please tie it in to the rest of the paragraph. As things stand it reads as irrelevant and very awkward.

Not established in science

This term is never used in any credible scientific resource, and this article is somewhat bold in presenting the term as being relevant. I believe it should be noted how this term is obscure, or something like a buzzword maybe spread by pop-journalism (or something similar), and use of it may very well be improper. The term is included in many articles here on Misplaced Pages, and editors will challenge or revert your edits when you decide to remove it, which I feel is unnecessary. The term also seems to have fallen out of use, further enforcing the notion of its irrelevant origin. Your thoughts? 75.82.59.241 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The term, umami, retrieves 845 articles listed on PubMed of the US National Library of Medicine from 2011 through February 2017, with 169 review articles since 1990. Perhaps if you could read the article and more specifically indicate what is missing in terms of its science, you, I and other editors could work to improve it. --Zefr (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't expect a reply so soon, please read my message again as I have made various recent edits. 75.82.59.241 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the term still seems very stupid and actually has fallen out of use. Can you prove continuous use of this term in a relevant manner? Lets be honest for a moment, the term really is very stupid, and nobody uses it anymore :) 75.82.59.241 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for my choice of words, but I prefer honesty and getting to the point of things quickly. 75.82.59.241 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just Google it, e.g., "umami-culinary-uses", retrieving > 8 million hits. It's a common widely accepted term both in culinary practices and science. --Zefr (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The term is definitely a buzzword, friend. I cannot believe this term can be found anywhere, no matter how obscure and repetitive within the same article, and it would really help spruce this place up by avoiding such nonsense terms :) GR.no (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You couldn't be more mistaken about PubMed which is the National Library of Medicine archiving service for the world's medical science publications, explained here. All of Misplaced Pages's medical content articles use it for references. I added to the Umami article the Tokyo-based Umami Information Center as an external link. It's comprehensive with the scientific and cultural background, a wide list of foods expressing it, ingredients in recommended amounts, recipes, how expert chefs describe it, etc. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Gah, nonsense! GR.no (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As commonly stated these days in science, journalism, politics, and other topics, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. WP:COMPETENCE is required. --Zefr (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Zefr. There's more than enough evidence for umami with hundreds of reliable sources by independent teams of scientists. Continuing to edit in the face of overwhelming evidence is simply tendentious editing. For example, we can refute the suggestion that the term is going out of use by a google scholar search for "umami 2016" which just now returned almost 8,000 scientific paper hits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh this is rich, the "Umami Information Center"? This indeed must be some type of elaborate joke. "5th sense"?? Like some kind of psychic taste? Come on, this cannot be serious. I realize this is enough evidence for Misplaced Pages, but you really don't have to perpetuate such a nonsense term despite it being technically viable. Really. GR.no (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, after some further thought I understand this to actually be an elaborate hoax. And I appreciate good humor, it is perhaps the most unique ability of the human species. Let me assure you there is absolutely no such thing as "Umami". Without a doubt - so clear that it does not require contrary evidence or any study. This subject cannot possibly be taken seriously by anyone. If you cannot taste something, then it cannot possibly be classified as a flavor. That is absurd, because a flavor is clearly defined as something you can taste. And furthermore, it seems the 'scientist' behind the creation of Umami had a very poor grasp on the four types of flavors which have already been defined previous to his 'discovery'. For this term to be partially adopted into mainstream science is indeed quite the impressive feat of comedy, and I congratulate the genius behind it. GR.no (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop, please. This is not a forum, but a page to discuss required edits. There aren't any in this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk)

I'm sorry but Misplaced Pages does rely heavily on common sense, which contradict some other 'official' rules here. This subject is really not difficult to understand and does not require sources to prove otherwise. In fact, I am making it perfectly clear to whoever reading this to stop using an improper term, despite that it may be technically viable, it is in fact improper. Anyone who is reading this should know, so there cannot be any excuse. Also please read the original message of this topic. I am suggesting adding the proper information to this article which disputes any legitimacy this term may have - using the shear force of common sense alone, which is actually a valid Misplaced Pages practice. Again this subject is really not complicated. And really, despite the part I mentioned on the beauty of humor, this article and term is actually offensive to science. 'Umami' is definitely not a scientific term. GR.no (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Tens of thousands of scientific papers, including the 8,000 last year alone, make use of it. Please drop the stick. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe you are comprehending what I just wrote. No offence, but the so called amount of scientific papers which included this term is irrelevant. They are also using an improper term, so it is likely to be from a novice, academic source (college students, or fresh from college perhaps). Again, common sense trumps what official Misplaced Pages rules you can come up with. The legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of this term does not require any proper source, by the power of shear common sense alone. The illegitimacy of this term is profoundly obvious. GR.no (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly: you think you know better than thousands of professional scientists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that thousands of professional scientists cannot be wrong? I commend your faith in humanity. But the term is really not used by any true professional. And if you wish to revisit key points of logic as to why this term is totally invalid, then we may do so. GR.no (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, they're all human, and science progresses by proving hypotheses wrong. However, when major journals like Nature publish review articles that use the term, we can feel confident that the term is very well accepted. "Receptors and transduction in taste", Nature, 2001. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument. Have you bothered reading anything I wrote? GR.no (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. You are profoundly mistaken in your thinking. I will not reply further to your filibustering. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Can anyone actually calculate statistics based on the frequency this term should be used, so the term may be classified as common or even relevant at all? Because I have been studying nutrition for some time and have only seen this term pop up here on Misplaced Pages and nowhere else on the internet. There is really no reason to argue with me about this. GR.no (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Really hoping we can come to an agreement. Any kind. I believe this term is thoroughly ridiculous, and there is undeniable reasons as to why the term is irrelevant and should not be used. GR.no (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can Umami also be described by licking a 9-volt battery? Seriously. GR.no (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Licking a 9v battery produces a savory flavor on top of the mild electric shock. This is because you are essentially tasting electrolyte :) Umami is electrolyte, which is not a flavor and is very VERY stupid to name a flavor after this :) GR.no (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Umami receptors - Yu study

This reference does not support the statement. The illiterate "weather" was written by GR.no. --Zefr (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear weather or not Umami is a real flavor.

References

1. Yu, Xiaqin; Zhang, Lujia; Miao, Xiaodan; Li, Yanyu; Liu, Yuan (2017-04-15). "The structure features of umami hexapeptides for the T1R1/T1R3 receptor". Food Chemistry. 221: 599–605. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.11.133. ISSN 0308-8146. PMID 27979247.

source clearly refers to Unami as something theoretical and not understood, and not as established fact. This should not be confused with any specific receptor which has been similarly named as "umami", as these are different. And the source I provided is actually much better than other sources used on article. GR.no (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no such statement made by the authors or inferred from their study. Try to point it out with a quote if you wish, but do not make further changes to the article until the dispute is settled here per WP:CON, i.e., I disagree, and you will need others to agree with your position. --Zefr (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What? Did you even read what I just said? GR.no (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I shall repeat myself. The source refers to Umami as something which is teroetical. This is apparent with the very first sentence of the source. How can you not understand this? Then, literally, the same sentence states how the mechanism of the theory is unclear. An unclear theory is definitely not established fact. Also, there seems to be confusion between the Umami Receptors and the flavor of Umami itself. The flavor of Umami (this article) is only a theory and not established fact. GR.no (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

... The information I posted along with source is totally correct and does not need to be removed. Would you agree? GR.no (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree and don't see anything in that abstract suggesting what you want it to say. The Yu study states its goals: "build a Three Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship model", i.e., it is a study to model the two groups of receptors. It does not address, but rather its purpose is to support, the well-established understanding that umami is a 5th taste. It is a supportive study for umami, albeit a WP:PRIMARY study that is a low-priority reference for the article. There is no agreement on the use of this conclusion of yours or the reference. Do not add it back, as you have passed the WP:3RR limit. Further, your persistence with this reflected by the discussion above proves you are arguing your opinion, which is WP:OR and WP:SOAP, two violations of Misplaced Pages editing and etiquette. --Zefr (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, allow me to make this more simple for you. I am essentially teaching you how to read at this point. The very first line taken directly from the abstract of the source is; "Umami is thought to be initiated by binding tastants to G-protein-coupled receptors in taste cells". - "Umami is thought to be." is what denotes theory. - Then the source goes on to say that the mechanism of this theory is unclear. Then the source mentions "In this study, we summarized umami peptides and classified them roughly into two groups" This is when the source shifts from the theory of Umami to the specific receptors which are coincidentally also named Umami. These receptors are not theory, but are named after the theory. Please don't remove my edits anymore. Thanks. GR.no (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Zefr that you are misrepresenting the meaning of the phrase that starts with "Umami is thought to be..." The full statement ("Umami is thought to be initiated by binding tastants to G-protein-coupled receptors in taste cells, while the structure and mechanism of the receptors are not clear") is clearly referring to aspects of the biochemical mechanism of Umami that are not well understood. There is nothing in the text of the abstract of the Yu paper which supports the claim that it is "unclear weather or not Umami is a real flavor". Deli nk (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You are literally making things up. The very first sentence of the abstract stating "Umami is thought to be" does actually denote theory. There is no question about this. For you to directly challenge this statement is ludicrous. I am inclined to believe you are trolling at this moment. And the source I provided is coincidentally the only real scientific source which has yet to be used in this article. This entire article is pretty much vandalism or a hoax which has been fabricated and barely adheres to Misplaced Pages rules and should be nominated for deletion. Do not revert my edits. GR.no (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is not a single scientific source used here which defines Umami as a flavor, at least from inception. Umami is not an established scientific fact. There are plenty of real scientific resources which define the four previous flavors of human taste. The science of these flavors are totally known and not ever presented as theory. Umami on the otherhand is loose and has no clear definition. Finding clear answers will be impossible because this subject is totally obscure. GR.no (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Also would like to remind you the source I provided is much better than crap posted from The guardian and Nature Journal. Those sources are really not the proper reference for this subject. GR.no (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• This article is about the supposed flavor of Umami, which is supposedly a 5th flavor of human taste. This flavor is a very loose theory and definitely not established as scientific fact, hence the entire conversation above this one. Furthermore, there is a group of receptors on the human tongue which have actually been named "Umami" but this name is arbitrary, and really has no meaning besides just being a simple name given to something. The sources originally used on this article are genuinely pathetic, this subject cannot possibly be any more of a fraud - this is profoundly obvious. Please think before you edit. 75.82.59.241 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it wrong to guess that this user is Chinese with a hatred for Japan? He really seems to hate this Japanese word. Correctron (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am Jewish and Mexican. I don't mind you asking either :) GR.no (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gang editing and abandonment of discussion

The replies have stopped for the two discussion above this pertaining about any credibility to this subject, and users only appear to revert my edits now. Furthermore there are other like minded individuals who also coincidentally appear when the moment is convenient and are only here to revert me. GR.no (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of us have lives to attend to, so we show up when damage is being done to the article to revert the damage but otherwise try not to waste our time. I’ve been following this article for years, as have others involved. GR.no, your arguments up until you trotted out Yu et al were nothing but uncivil, repeated assertions of your own opinion, unbacked by any source or any evident reasoning. As soapboxing, that’s not allowed. Your reading of Yu is farcical. You cannot just excerpt a phrase from a sentence and pretend the rest of the sentence doesn’t matter. The Yu study does not say anything like what you are claiming, making your slanderous comments about other people’s reading ability all the more “interesting”. Strebe (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of information which denotes theory

This subject is relatively obscure, so finding sources which prove this subject to be scientific fact may be difficult or impossible. I made an edit which correctly attributed this subject as theory, and even added relevant information pertaining to the similarly-named taste receptors and clearing any confusion between the two (between the flavor and the taste receptors). These edits were properly sourced and should not have been removed, and they were different to the edits being contested by others. Furthermore, since I was adding information to this article and not removing any, it is my understanding that removing my edits must be discussed here first. I am going to re-introduce the information which was removed, and encourage any further discussion here (or anywhere on this page) GR.no (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not try introducing that again until you get consensus. Until you bring very strong refs showing that the current content (which accurately represents the good refs on which it is based) are wrong or outdated, you will not get consensus. I recommend you post proposals here. Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Very strong refs"? I believe the burden exists on anyone to prove otherwise. We all assume this subject to be scientific fact, when it is almost certainly not. I am simply clearing this up. Can you show me one article which proves Umami to be scientific fact? Any source pertaining to its inception at all? Again I must remind you this subject is relatively obscure, and we all really assume it to be scientific fact, when it is almost certainly not. GR.no (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please post proposals here; please make sure they are very well sourced. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

All of the sources here only generally speak of the subject, none of them are really solid though. Again, this subject is relatively obscure, and nobody can prove it to be established as scientific fact. GR.no (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As everyone who has commented here has told you, the sources in the article are and solid and clear, and you need to provide sources for your proposed changes. Please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

GR.no, you’re repeating your opinions over and over and over. It does not matter how many times you claim that the sources are not solid and that the topic is obscure and not factual, you are not a WP:RELIABLE source. We are not allowed to use your opinion to change the article. The edits you keep trying to make are not supported by the citation you give; you’re taking a few words out of context to pretend they mean something that they do not mean, ignoring the mass of evidence that contradicts you. These edits are WP:DISRUPTIVE, evidencing these WP:DISRUPTIVE signs:

• Tendentious;
• Cannot satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY;
• Has not swayed consensus;
• Rejects or ignores community input;
• Refuses to get the point.

It’s time to move on or see the article locked and bring in arbitration. Strebe (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

arbitration? no... They just need to get consensus for their edits or they will face longer and longer blocks until they get indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The subject is total BS though. Literally, some Japanese *scientist* mistook a simple electrolytic chemical effect and tried to interpret this an additional flavor of human taste, rather as a modification of the four previously established flavors. There are legitimate sources which try and contest this supposed additional flavor of Umami, in a professional manner which avoids flat-out calling them idiots. This is quite obvious. And any scientific sources which are provided on this subject only describe inherent functions which are virtually identical to previously established functions of human taste, but are worded differently, most likely in an attempt to sound meaningful or complicated. This subject is extremely ridiculous, and I don't believe I should be facing this much opposition simply because of my behavior. I find the perpetuated idiocy of this subject to be more offensive than anything else. And Misplaced Pages administrators only seem to act as social leaders of some internet high school, rather than being concerned about quality or legitimacy of any subject. 75.82.63.187 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles