Talk:Yerba mate

How to prepare it?

How many litres of drink can be done with 1kg of Yerba Mate?

I've added a comprehensive (though somewhat hastily-written) guide to how mate is traditionally prepared with a gourd and bombilla, as well as adding an excellent resource on the same to the External Links (among a couple other relevant links). My sense is that such discussion should likely be separated from the discussion of mate paraphernalia, but unfortunately I'm off to bed and am unable to take any further time to pry apart those two very intertwined items.

What are your thoughts about splitting the "Mate drinking" section into two, so as to separate any sort of procedural guide from discussion of mate's more tangible elements? - SeekerOfWisdumb 4.26.2005-14:20GMT

Terere

I think the material on terere should be extended, or even (if enaugh can be put together) a separate article should be created.--Lacrymology 08:21:06, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Chile and Mate drinking

I'm Chilean and a regular mate drinking, yes I'm from magallanes. Anyway, I don't think that drinking yerba mate in Chiloé and Magallanes in just because of Argentinian influence as it's stated in the article. It's better to say that it is something that has been lost in other regions of Chile (anyways in Araucanía, Los Lagos and other rural zones of chile it is still popular). In colonial times it was a costume much more widespread. - DaniloVilicic

Curing

i think that curing the mate is a very important topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.71.92 (talk • contribs) 28 Sep 2006

Mate Overdose

Since mate contains such high levels of caffeine/ mateine, taking it in super large doses (for example 50 cups worth a day) for long periods of time (weeks or months) can cause a caffeine overdose. This can trigger seizures among many other side effects. So if you are trying to ween yourself off of other types of stimulants with mate, be careful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.132.42 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you were suggesting that for inclusion in the article, but who drinks 50 cups a day?!?! MsBatfish (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If your drinking 50 cups of any liquid a day you are likely going to get hyponatremia.

File:Erva Mate Plantation Brasil.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Erva Mate Plantation Brasil.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Yerba maté → Yerba mate – Per discussion, it seems "maté" is found in dictionaries, but almost never in the wild. Common English usage is clearly "mate". This can be clearly seen with a Google search (note that point 7 of WP:GOOGLE#Search engine tests says that search engines are useful for "Identifying the names used for things (including alternative names and terminology)"). When I search Google for "yerba maté|mate" (with the United States as my location), only three of the top 50 results (including Wikipedia) use "yerba maté". Wikipedia "Maté" should be listed as an alternative spelling, of course, but Wikipedia is not ruled by dictionaries. relisted -Mike Cline (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) - Afiler (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Don't care for either option The pronunciation is with the accent. The tea is usually referred to yerba alone in South America. The article for the beverage itself is at mate (beverage), without the accent. I would suggest that the article be moved instead to Yerba. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The use of "é" is understandable and indeed useful; but it is not warranted by etymology: Quechua mati via Spanish mate. In fact, the diacritical might give a false impression that the second syllable is accented in Spanish, and therefore should be in English. Sources agree pretty well on no actute; see ngrams for "yerba mate,yerba maté" [see below]. Noetica^Tea? 05:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support as per Spanish, no accent The use of "é" appears to be from French and/or hypercorrection to avoid Australian "ello mate!". Given that this is a Spanish term and terminus technicus, conform to Spanish orthography, WP:EN not relevant here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A statistical report

I have withdrawn my ngram evidence (see above) because Google ngrams fail with "é", and presumably with other diacriticals. Instead, I have analysed the first 100 Googlebook hits on yerba mate OR maté, using the restrictions "Preview available›Books›1 Jan 1970–24 Nov 2011›" (and also "English language", not shown at the head of the page but in the specification). This search found published sources with "yerba" and at least one of "mate" and "maté". In the results for the first 100 hits (the excerpts on the results page):

• 179 of the 216 occurrences were "mate" (and all were semantically associated with "yerba")
• 37 of the 216 occurrences were "maté"
• [there were 191 occurrences of "yerba"]

None of the 100 excerpts on that page had both "mate" and "maté", except 2 in which cross-language distinctions were made.

Google excerpts are sometimes inaccurate for diacriticals. I examined the first 20 hits with "mate" that could genuinely be viewed (some could not), and found that 3 in fact had "maté" instead. I reduced the result for "mate" using the ratio 17/20, and transferred those removed to "maté" instead (so that the total reported remains 216):

• "mate": 152 (70%)
• "maté":  64 (30%)

Conclusion: "yerba mate" is estimated to be the preference in 70% of published sources, and "yerba maté" in 30%. This estimate draws on dominant, checkable, primary sources (not general dictionaries) from the last four decades.

Noetica^Tea? 23:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No diacritic gets majority usage on Google Books. For maté, I get 15 percent usage (486 / 3,180). This compares to 29 percent for café (93,300 / 317,000), and 11 percent for crêpe (421 / 3,790). This ngram suggests that the usage for the diacritic in yerba maté is around 1 percent, but the numbers from Google Books directly yield 22 percent (973 / 4,490). I've found that this is pretty typical, i.e. that the ngram picks up only a fraction of the Google Book diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner, I have corrected the omission of one acute in my preceding post; but the report was unambiguous (with only one reasonable interpretation available).

But I cannot immediately follow what you are saying. Those Googlebook estimates are always suspect. And I have already pointed out that ngram evidence (such as I withdrew, above) is utterly worthless in the present case. The ngrams scarcely register forms with "é" at all. Try "café", "résumé", etc. to see what I mean. What is your assessment of my rather nuanced analysis, which makes statistical corrections to arrive a reliable estimate? Noetica^Tea? 05:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the numbers I presented speak for themselves: The usage rate for this diacritic is extremely high, almost as high as for the diacritic in "café", which is perhaps the best established of all English-language diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just once in a while I'd like a straight answer when I ask a question, Kauffner. I go to all the trouble of a statistically sound sampling and analysis; I present the results lucidly; I ask for your assessment (are there flaws in my method, or what?); and I get no answer. I cannot see what you are driving at with these latest figures, whose derivation I have criticised. Someone else might make sense of your post; but I'm afraid that for me there is nothing in it that remotely "speaks for itself". Feel free to respond, this time. And clarify. Noetica^Tea? 06:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Collins English Dictionary, Random House, Merriam Webster, Oxford, and Britannica, all give maté as the preferred form. So the article title should be Maté (plant). It's same idea as café or résumé, where the diacritic shows pronunciation. How the word is spelled or pronounced in Spanish shouldn't make any difference. Kauffner (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: First, the original suggestion is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and yet you use dictionaries to make your point. Second, it's not correct at all to call it the plant. It's the yerba plant Yerba is the tea out of which you make mate. Third, the diacritical in café and résumé actually reflect a different pronunciation. With Mate, the pronunciation is not "ma-tay", it's a short "e" at the end, but it incorrectly distinguishes the pronunciation from the English synonym for "friend". How the word is pronounced is essential. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In English, it is pronounced /ˌyer-bə-ˈmä-ˌtā/. The link is to Merriam-Webster, which has a nice sound file for this. I don't see anyone using "yerba" to mean the plant. Kauffner (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That pronunciation is machine generated based on the incorrect spelling. Don't use it as a reliable source. The Castillians and Portuguese Brazilian pronunciation is correct. I've corrected the statement. Yerba is the tea. Mate is the drink. Cocoa is the product. Chocolate mile and hot chocolate are the drinks. Check other versions of Wikipedia to see how they use it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The case is not unproblematically like "café" or "résumé". There can be no downside to retaining an original diacritical in those cases; but there is, as I have pointed out, a downside in adding an unetymological acute to "yerba mate". Spanish orthography and pronunciation are not irrelevant, because many readers will know that an acute marks a syllable as stressed in Spanish (and Portuguese); some will be misled. Noetica^Tea? 23:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of a couple cases in English where diacritics are used to indicate pronunciation and where the diacritics don't come directly from another language, but it's the diaresis/umlaut symbol that's used. There are the given names Chloë and Zoë, the surname Brontë, and the old-fashioned spelling of hyphenated words like coöperation (now usually spelled cooperation or co-operation) and seër (see here), still used by the New Yorker magazine. Based on this convention, the most logical English spelling would be "matë", though I have not found this in actual use. - Afiler (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This matter is handled pretty well in Mate (beverage), the article about the brew commonly made from this plant. The pertinent material is presented below, along with its supporting citations:

Both the spellings "mate" and "maté" are used in English. The acute accent on the final letter is likely added as a hypercorrection, and serves to indicate that the word and its pronunciation are distinct from the common English word "mate". However, the Yerba Mate Association of the Americas states that it is always improper to accent the second syllable, since doing so confuses the word with an unrelated Spanish word for killing ("Maté" literally means "I killed" in Spanish).

From this material, and from the many posts by Spanish-speaking editors, it's pretty clear (to me) that the accent does NOT belong there, in spite of its presence in many not-so-reliable-on-this-point dictionaries. (See the footnote from the highly authoritative Webster's Third)

I can't supply a reliable source, but I've been schooled that the "ma" is pronounced like that in maharaja or mama, and the "te" is pronounced like that in technical. Lou Sander (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I see that the Yerba Mate Association has changed their web site, and the above reference to it is out of date. Nuts! Some native speakers pronouncing the word can be found HERE, and some comments on spelling can be found in the last paragraph HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support: from reading all the evidence presented here, it appears that "mate" is the "correct" spelling and that it is also the more common. Make Yerba maté a re-direct and include it as an alternate spelling in the lead of the article. All this arguing about the "proper" pronunciation is just distracting us from the issue at hand. I thought we were trying to decide what the title should be, not what the most authentic pronunciation is.

If people dispute the pronunciation guide in this and/or the Mate (beverage) article, perhaps that should be discussed in its own separate section. MsBatfish (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Xanthines heading - badly worded sentence

It is a minor point, but a sentence, referring to synonyms for caffeine, under the heading Chemical composition and properties: Xanthines is perfectly understandable but nevertheless semantically nonsensical. A substance cannot be a synonym. Only a word can be a synonym. Thus, I propose changing the sentence to something like: The word "mateine" was previously used as a synonym for caffeine (like theine and guaranine).

The sentence currently reads: A substance previously called "mateine" is a synonym for caffeine (like theine and guaranine). 85.222.86.10 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. Please make the change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it might be better to make it even clearer, since as it reads (even with the grammatical correction) it sounds like it is just another word for caffeine. But it is not - it's a specific word for the caffeine found in mate, (for example, one wouldn't refer to the caffeine in coffee as "mateine"). Perhaps a better option would be to say: The word "mateine" was previously used as a case-specific synonym for caffeine (like theine and guaranine), or, even more clear, but longer: "Mateine" is a word (no longer in common use) for the caffeine chemical found in yerba mate; however, it is identical to the caffeine derived from other sources, for example coffee or tea. Similar cases where this has been done include theine and guaranine. or something like that...
  

Thoughts? MsBatfish (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if "mateine" refers to the caffeine found in mate then it is not a synonym for caffeine at all. How about this: The word "mateine" was formerly used to refer to the caffeine in yerba mate (similarly theine and guaranine refer to the caffeine in tea and guarana respectively). Biirnats (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The leaves, popularly called "herb"?

The article says: The leaves, popularly called "herb" (Spanish: yerba, Portuguese: erva)..
Does anyone in any place actually call them "herb"? (I've never heard this, even in English it's usually yerba, isn't it?). Or is it just trying to explain what the Spanish and Portuguese words mean? I would prefer something like: The leaves, popularly referred to as "yerba", meaning "herb", (Portuguese: erva).. but I thought I'd bring it up here first in case there is some reason it was done this way. MsBatfish (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the one who wrote that was actually thinking on Spanish and Portuguese usage. As far as to my understanding yerba is understood as yerba mate in Spanish language only in some contexts cause it can also refer to herbs in general or for example to marihuana. Chiton magnificus (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So do you mean that you agree and you think that saying "herb" is just providing the English translation for what the words mean? In English Wikipedia, we should say what the most commonly used word is by English speakers, even if it's a word borrowed from another language. Since, to my knowledge, English speakers do not call yerba "herb" - it is just that the word means herb in Spanish (and the Portuguese "erva" means "herb" as well) - I think the sentence should be re-phrased. How about something like:

The leaves, popularly called "yerba" in English and Spanish, from the Spanish word for "herb" (Portuguese: "erva")..

It doesn't imply that the word "yerba" (or "erva") always refers to the leaves of yerba mate, that is why there are quotations marks ("Scare quotes"), to signify that it is only in this context, and the translation "herb" helps with that as well. MsBatfish (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Health effects

The section on health effects must use either review articles or major textbooks as refs. Primary research is not appropriate. Will work on removing non reviews in the next few days.

As the following ref is completely useless thus removed. We need a articles title and year of publication

In an investigation of mate antioxidant activity, there was a correlation found between content of caffeoyl-derivatives and antioxidant capacity (AOC). Amongst a group of Ilex species,Ilex paraguariensis antioxidant activity was the highest.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There no need for review articles or textbooks editors must simply be cautious when using primary sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of that requirement before either. In fact, I've heard people say the opposite is true: that it is better to use a (credible) primary or direct source for research, statistics, etc, as opposed to a source publishing, quoting, paraphrasing, or making conclusions based on that research. If there is some Wikipedia policy where what you (Doc James) say is referred to, please link to the policy here. And please explain your conclusion that that ref was "useless", that is rather vague and subjective. MsBatfish (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure this one here WP:MEDRS which pertains to specifically health content.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the above ref can anyone provide a PMID, article title, journal name and date of publication? It is just a link to a publishing house. Also specifically we should not use primary research to contradict review articles which basically act to balance the sum of the literature.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That page doesn't say that primary sources should never be used, just that they should ideally not be used when a secondary source is available and that they should be used very carefully and the article should explain where the statement came from and note any caveats etc. I think it would be most helpful if you made a complete list of every statement and source (with links to the specific source) you're removing and why, so that other editors can understand why they're being removed and have a chance to find a better source to support the material, and/or edit the statements in the article to make them comply with the guidelines for primary sources. I think it should also be noted that the guidelines you are referring to apply specifically to medical information, so that people don't get confused and think that this applies to all parts of all articles (or conversely, think that only the regular guidelines on sources apply and assume that Doc James must be wrong). I see you (Doc James) are starting to list some of the segments of the article that you dispute, which is good. I for one would really appreciate if you were even more detailed, either provide exact quotes of the disputed material with a link to the source and/or the individual diffs for each edit (in cases where you've already made an edit). Thanks very much.

Also, I think the wording of the guideline is kind of unclear when it says "if secondary sources are available". It could be interpreted 2 ways: to mean secondary sources for the specific statement, or secondary sources on the topic. Do you think this is something I should mention at the Talk page for WP:MEDRS? Maybe the wording could be made clearer? MsBatfish (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes not that they should never be used. Thus in my efforts to improve this article I am replacing the primary research with review articles which is completely inline with policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cancer

There are some good review articles with respect to cancer such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20036605 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly which sources don't meet WP:RS?

This edit added the tag but no discussion related to which sources are unreliable. Will remove if it's not explained further. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is in this section. Currently there are refs such as this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616809 when there are review articles available. Thus the tag.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to look at WP:RS and when you're don, explain which sources are not reliable. There are no blogs to my knowledge, don't know about the fact checking of the existing sources. This thing about review articles is not mentioned there so it's a red herring as far as I'm concerned, but this is the season for pickled herring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." in this section [1] Review articles are available thus we should use them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You keep twisting things to suit your opinion. For instance, I asked why the source that you remove was not reliable. Instead of answering that question you state a different fact. In short, the source meets WP:RS and you're not willing to admit it because it contradicts other sources, sources that state that drinking mate is carcinogenic. I'm going to restore it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Majority opinion supports the usage of review articles and does not generally support the use of primary per WP:DUE. There are many primary sources in this article that are being used inappropriately.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. WP:DUE doesn't mention that at all. I don't see any primary sources being used inappropriately. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All that I see is "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." So I'm sorry, you're mistaken about what WP:DUE states. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Single studies of dubious quality are not "significant viewpoints." Hence, omitting them from the article is consistent with what you quoted from policy. Honestly, this is more about "will this make a good article?" and dubious health claims have no place in a good article. Whether some specific line of policy allows or forbids is not that important, it's the idea that matters. The idea here is that we don't want minimum-quality sourcing of dubious health claims when there isn't reliable secondary source coverage that gives us as authors reasonable perspective on the topic. SDY (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Obesity section

This paragraph based on two studies in mice comes out and states "In most studies" which is original research as neither ref makes this claim, than does not even mention that the only evidence is in mice.

In most studies, Ilex paraguensis tea has been shown to lessen the tendency towards obesity induced by a high-starch diet.

Both of the papers are primary research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And? Let me explain this to you in simple terms: primary sources are not bad. They are not unusable. They are not even suspect. They are simply primary sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the caution on primary sources comes into effect is when it's by a specific subject and that subject is saying things that others don't. For instance a primary source by Adolph Hitler may be taken suspiciously when discussing the person, but not when discussing his philosophy as in Mein Kampf. So stop painting all primary sources as bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are, in general, bad sources for an article. There are some exceptions (direct quotations an obvious example), but those are exceptions and in general primary sources are not suitable for writing an encyclopedia. Relying on single published papers to summarize the current state of research essentially runs the risk of distorting the due weight of the findings. In general, single papers as primary sources are dubious and can really only support claims like "research exists" or "this is being evaluated" or "there may be an effect." The claims in the article were "it works" which requires a lot more than just a single study. SDY (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Primary sources are not ideal, but they're acceptable. See WP:RS. They were not being used for the only summary of the current state of research and had you actually read what was removed you would have seen that. Restoring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Consumption of mate (Ilex paraguariensis) improves serum lipid parameters in healthy dyslipidemic subjects and provides an additional LDL-cholesterol reduction in individuals on statin therapy.

That's a very conclusive statement, backed up by... one study published in a nonmedical journal. The study abstract describes it as a single-blind trial with no control group, which is not a very convincing trial design. It is a human trial, and it had a reasonable study population (102 subjects in three study arms), but as medical research goes it's fairly weak evidence. Do we really want to stuff the article full of dubious claims with the bare minimum quality of sourcing? "It doesn't say we can't" is an extremely weak argument for including these sources. SDY (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means, the emphasis should be reduced wherever possible, particularly in the face of WP:UNDUE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

General comment

I haven't looked closely at the whole section, but the subsections on Obesity, Cholesterol, E-NTPDase activity, and Antioxidants don't seem worthy of inclusion in the article. They are nothing but reports on individual studies, and they lack conclusions published independently of themselves. I don't see this as a matter of the nature or quality of the sources, but of whether this material even belongs in Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a summary of individual studies. Lou Sander (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I could see a "research on health benefits" section being appropriate. Honestly, people frequently make all sorts of claims about mate and green tea and such, so the article would be incomplete without some mention of the claims. Might be better to roll them all into one section, though, since they're "notable" as a group even if the individual claims aren't individually "notable." SDY (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree and another issue is that studies on potential mechanism of effects (for example that it is an antioxidant) is presented as a health effect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. WP:NOR forbids synthesizing information that is not synthesized elsewhere. We might be doing that if we said "There are questions about health effects" and provided a list of these studies. IMHO, we WOULD BE doing it, and shouldn't. If we can find a reference that says there are such questions, we could certainly incorporate these studies into the list of references about it. Lou Sander (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also a question about undue weight being given to individual studies. WP:UNDUE doesn't directly address "individual studies", but it DOES say pretty strongly that individual viewpoints that haven't achieved any sort of following shouldn't be in an article. IMHO, individual health studies fall into that category. Strictly speaking they aren't "viewpoints", I suppose, but they are the same sort of animal. Lou Sander (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)