Talk:Vitamin U

Health and fitness NA‑class Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

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

Article title

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

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

Reliable Medical Sources

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

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

Relevance

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

If you just want to write about health benefits of cabbage, maybe the best place would be Cabbage#Medicinal properties. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many instances, cabbage is not the best way to go. While it contains all of these isothiocyanates and indoles, the most helpful ones are not always present in sufficient amounts in cabbage to contain a medical effect. As I said on your talk page, I would be willing to redirect to Brassicaceae#Medicinal_Properties.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

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

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

The problem with the dictionary is that I do not see Cheney accepting such a narrow definition of the healthy chemicals in cabbage, and I see lots of other researchers checking these things out. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with requesting a discussion of the move is that I've already offerred to copy the content into Brassicaceae#Medicinal_Properties and redirect Vitamin U to that place. No need is to create orphans with some bot that tries to make wikipedia into a vote full of people who won't even look at the talk page to see the whole discussion. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.

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

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

The chemicals already in the article cover several fields of medical expertise, and I suspect that doctors would welcome something that sounds very simple, however complex chemical components of Brassicaceae and their decomposition products may turn out to be. I believe they deserve their own article, yet I hav offerred to move.137.186.41.70 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (see the example of caffeine there) and consistency with Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, and Vitamin K. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, following WP:UCN,we are here to inform, not here to be pedantic.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger

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

This article should be merged to S-methylmethionine, I am fairly sure they are the same thing. Lesion (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NCI thesaurus entry is pretty clear that S-methymethionine chloride and Vitamin U are both synonyms for Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride, so it's just the difference of the chloride ion. Should be one article with redirects and an explanatory hatnote. Certainly the sourcing should be improved, there are scads of primary sources in there. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the history of S-methylmethionine that vitamin U used to redirect there, but was made into a stand alone article. Since, there has been a discussion to merge it to Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride before, citing the same source as you have above, however the consensus (incorrectly imo) did not merge it. Might be good to alert wikiproject molecular biology about this. My merge tags were taken off with the explanation that this merge was proposed before. I directed one of the IPs to WP:MEDRS and another secondary source treating Vitamin U and S-methylmethionine as synonyms. Might be the case that there are sources using the term slightly differently from each other, but the source you provide above sounds authoritative to me, and I think we should follow that. Lesion (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further support for S-methymethionine chloride as a synonym: CID 14220 from PubChem and Vitamin U at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)

Unfortunately it appears there is a lack of suitable Vitamin U review articles. Boghog (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.238 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To do the merger properly, all of the content from one article would hav to be put into the other article. At this point, that means moving all content from S-methylmethionine to Vitamin_U, then making the chemical name into a redirection, so that the other chemicals in Vitamin_U can be accomodated. Note that accomodating the other chemicals invalidates three dictionary entries for being overly simple. Note also that such a thing az an appeal to authority iz.
Following the rules will not get the job done.
-- Dilbert

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

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

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

This review again lists vitamin U as a synonym of S methylmethionine. My understanding of this situation is as follows:

we have 3 reliable secondary sources which describe the term as a synonym.

75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That iz reazon enough to believe that two of them copied one of them.
If you take more from the dump than you leave, then you might be a redneck.

we have an IP editor who turned the original vitamin U redirect into a stand alone article, which apart from the secondary sources recently added, is based almost entirely on primary sources

75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are few secondary sources on this topic, it iz bekuz wikipedia's article iz not quite up to the point of being itself a secondary or tertiary source on this topic. In other words, Vitamin U iz not a point of focus for reviewers, because this concept haz only been exhumed for a year.
No shrink beats a puppy licking your face.

the IP is using some of the primary sources to over-rule the secondary sources and change the tone of the article to state that vitamin U is not a synonym but a term referring to several chemicals. The IP particularly prefers to use the primary sources of one author, which could be argued constitutes WP:CHERRY, WP:COI and WP:UNDUE. WP:NOR may also apply here.

75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rezent this lie. I hav used the name of one author in the article, because he wuz or iz a professor at Stanford University, and he coined the term. In other news, I do not use author names in searches, unless I remember that their work supports or refutes whatever I am trying to say, so MANY authors are in references of this article.
Kirk -"Bones! It's Ensign Pillsbury!" McCoy -"He's bread, Jim."

the IP has failed to provide a reliable secondary source to support the content currently supported by these primary sources

75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I hav one secondary source in this article, then you are lying. If wikipedia iz the only potential secondary source on this topic, then I can be excused. Broad attacks on somebody's performance that are lies are also personal attacks.
RECURSIVE: adj. See recursive.

they are also willing to make personal attacks towards other editors and edit war

75.152.123.238 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One reversion of somebody's work duz not constitute an edit war. "Yoh Momuh Jokes" are not personal attacks. They are impossibilities.
Confucius say: If you turn an oriental around, he become disoriented.

Given the multiple primary sources, and the other problems of undue weight to fringe theories, and the fact that we have several reliable sources which use the term "vitamin U" as a synonym of one chemical, I support merge, either to Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride or to S-methylmethionine, and deletion of the content supported by primary sources. Lesion (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is mainly a semantic question that is created by the fact that the "active" ingredient is a sulfonium cation. Furthermore pure cations cannot be put into a bottle with out an anionic counter ion of which there are potentially an infinite number. In living organisms, chloride is by far the most common anionic counter ion. Hence vitamin U isolated from natural sources is most likely to be the chloride salt. Hence it is understandable that the reliable sources mentioned above define vitamin U as methylmethionine sulfonium chloride. For these reasons, I support renaming the vitamin U article as methylmethionine sulfonium chloride with a redirect from vitamin U. Boghog (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.152.123.238 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sulphide toxicity in colonocytes is reversible by

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

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

In my opinion, yes since the MeSH link lists S-methylmethionine as a synonym of "vitamin U". Boghog (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

^ "Review on Biochemical Importance of Vitamin-U" (PDF).

[1] "Review on Biochemical Importance of Vitamin-U" (PDF).

[1]