Jump to content

Talk:Geophagia

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

See also Talk:Geophagy

older entries

[edit]

I agree with the merging of these two articles. It is obvious that the two articles contain some of the same information, and in turn could be joined into one larger article.

Lane Clark

merge

[edit]

I agree that these articles should be merged. They refer to the same condition.

Move

[edit]
Copied from Talk:Geophagy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Category:Pica (disorder), this is the only article listed as a phagy rather than a phagia. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Hyalophagia, I propose to move this article to Geophagia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

[edit]

It seems to me that as we now have merged pages, we need to decide whether to consistently use the term 'geophagy' or 'geophagia' throughout. Does anyone think that they are not interchangable? Can I replace all of the one for the other? JMWt (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing to geophagia would be good. I just left a note on your talk page about primary sources and WP:MEDRS. [1] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of primary sources

[edit]

This edit removed some of my additions (plus some of other editors) on the basis that they are primary sources as per WP:MEDRS. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geophagia&curid=1238868&diff=648805718&oldid=648805010

I dispute that "Water Research Commission project K5/2379: Investigating the practice of open defecation post sanitation provision and the practice and implications of ingesting soil which may be contaminated: literature review" is a primary source. Clearly it is a secondary source, but unfortunately it is not freely available online for me to link to.

The two other studies I referred to are primary sources (in the sense given in WP:MEDRS) but are descriptive and are not 'medical sources' in the sense suggested by the content guideline. The soil and faeces were analysed from those particular situations and the results were found. This is not to imply anything about other situations.

Given that there are no systematic review articles, I cannot see how else examples of situations could be included. And the article is poorer without some evidence about the health effects of geophagia from peer reviewed journals. JMWt (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More significant than not being freely available is that the Water Commission report is not yet published (see WP:V).

Why do you say there are no review articles? There are many; click on the link in the box at the top of the page, and substitute geophagia with geophagy. I can't see any reason to report very old primary studies when there are recent secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the correction and explaining it, I will find better sources. JMWt (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothesis removed

[edit]
Moved from article to talk for discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are unable to synthesize Vitamin B12 and one hypothesis is that geophagy may be an adaptive behaviour in order to obtain this necessary nutrient from bacteria living within soil.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Soils and Human Health".
Is this hypothesis mentioned in any recent reliable reviews? If not, is it WP:UNDUE to raise such speculation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On this point: Soils and Human Health seems to be a reputable text source from a recent (2012) publication: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439844540 The page (in this book) referring to this claim references a review article by Young et al in 2011 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/659884?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105460704801 and another textbook which looks reputable from 2008 http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6796 (available here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eZ7Zo5oM1tAC&lpg=PR7&ots=6BOZHlWP9c&dq=oxnard%20ghostly%20muscles&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false). I'd be interested to hear whether this therefore counts as a reputable recent review. JMWt (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like good sources. Perhaps you can propose the text and citations here, and I can help you format the citations correctly here on talk, and then you can readd it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - how about this:
Humans are not able to synthesize cobalamin (Vitamin B12), so one recent review suggested it was a plausible hypothesis that geophagia was a behavioral adaption to obtain it from the bacteria in the soil.[1]: 195 JMWt (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take care with upper case :) Here's wording I suggest:

  • Humans are not able to synthesize vitamin B12 (cobalamin), so geophagia may be a behavioral adaption to obtain it from bacteria in the soil.[2]: 195 
Ah thanks, I was struggling to work out how to do double authors/editors in the cite book template. Easier than I thought. JMWt (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Henry, JM; Cring, FD (2012). "Geophagy An Anthropological Perspective". In Brevik, EC; Burgess, LC (eds.). Soils and Human Health. CRC Press. doi:10.1201/b13683-12. ISBN 9781439844540.
  2. ^ Henry JM, Cring FD (2012). "Geophagy An Anthropological Perspective". In Brevik EC, Burgess LC (ed.). Soils and Human Health. CRC Press. doi:10.1201/b13683-12. ISBN 9781439844540.

"Absorbs dangerous toxins"

[edit]
Moved to talk for better sourcing; we shouldn't be making health claims based on a 1975 article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In parts of Africa, rural areas of the United States, and villages in India, clay consumption is correlated with pregnancy and some women eat clay to eliminate nausea, possibly because the clay coats the gastrointestinal tract and may absorb dangerous toxins.[1]

References

  1. ^ Vermeer DE, Frate DA (1975). "Geophagy in a Mississippi county". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 65 (3): 414–416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1975.tb01049.x.

Removed for sourcing

[edit]
Enotes.com homework notes is not even close to a reliable source-- removed from article for sourcing. We can't be making claims about health benefits from non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of geophagia include nutrition, detoxification, antimicrobial and anti-parasitic agent. However, the reasons for geophagia are largely species-specific.[citation needed] Krishnamani and Mahaney evaluated various hypotheses that could lead to routine geophagia in different species of primates including Japanese macaques and chimpanzees.[1] Reasons for geophagia are largely dependent on the species as well as the habitat. For instance, mountain gorillas demonstrate geophagia as a result of an increased need for iron. Iron supplementation from the soil helps to meet the demands of decreased oxygen partial pressure at high altitudes.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-pica-468926

Antidiarrheal properties

[edit]
I have moved this section, which was in the Benefits section for discussion. I kept a phrase about chimps (without the claim about human health) and moved it to the Primates section. I am assuming for now that this source is acceptable for evidence about primate behaviour if not about human health. JMWt (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simulated mastication and digestion reveals that the clay helps to release active antimalarial components from the leaves. The same type of soil is used by local healers to treat diarrhea,[unreliable medical source?][1] presumably by the same mechanism as over-the-counter antidiarrheal preparations.

References

  1. ^ [non-primary source needed] Klein N, Fröhlich F, Krief S (2008). "Geophagy: soil consumption enhances the bioactivities of plants eaten by chimpanzees". Naturwissenschaften. 95 (4): 325–31. doi:10.1007/s00114-007-0333-0. PMID 18188538.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Anthropological and historical evidence

[edit]

The first phrase in this section is a verbatim quote, so I have changed it to show this. I'm not totally sure it is strong enough to stay, but better it is shown to be a quote if it is one. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know the field-- if you feel it is not strong enough to be in the article, I defer to your judgment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing notes

[edit]
  • WP:OVERLINK, terms should be linked on first occurrence, and common terms need not be linked.
  • WP:FN-- please note that citations go after punctuation (except dashes), with no spaces.[2][3][4][5]
  • Please observe the following two (similar) citations in the article (now corrected):[6]
  • Please observe this citation:
    • Williams, Lynda B., and Shelley E. Haydel (2010). "Evaluation of the medicinal use of clay minerals as antibacterial agents." International geology review 52, no. 7-8 (2010): 745-770. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00206811003679737 Accessed 2015-02-26 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904249/
      which renders as:
    compared to the corrected [7]
  • When a PubMed identifier (PMID) is available, it should be used.
  • When a PMC is available, it can be linked via the PMC parameter (and in that case, a URL is not needed).
  • See correct formatting of journal, volume, issue, and page number range.
  • Regarding Abrahams in Selenius:
    • DOIs link to abstracts: [8]
    • See WP:REFNAME-- naming a citation allows for it to be reused.[9]
    • This is one way to re-use a book with multiple page nos: [10]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binomial nomenclature

[edit]

SandyGeorgia, thanks for your patience with my poor formatting. I have taken note and will do better.

One small thing: under standard Binomial nomenclature, the first word in a scientific species name always has a capital letter, so trichilia rubescens (sic) is wrong - I think you changed it in one of your edits. Strictly speaking it should also be in italics, but I am not sure of the correct form for use on wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AH! I was not aware it always needed uppercase (the overuse of uppercase is a big problem on Wikipedia). Yes, it should be in italics (that is done by adding two separate straight quote marks around the text, like this: ''text between two straight quotes is italicized'' renders this: text between two straight quotes is italicized. But why did you remove the link? See WP:RED; red links like Trichilia rubescens encourage other editors to write missing articles. It is a pleasure to teach and mentor new editors when they pay attention !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok my fault. In my previous life editing wikis outside of wikipedia, red links were considered a sign of poor editing. A pet hate :) JMWt (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced text deleted

[edit]

Rex Imperator, I'm unclear why you deleted this sourced text:[11] the citations are not consistent or necessarily written correctly, but it is sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the paragraphs which were removed did not have citations, but I think it was a little bit extreme to remove them altogether without any discussion. I confess I did look at them when working on this page before but did not investigate whether there was any referenced support for the assertions - I think they should be investigated rather than just removed. The quote below was not added by me, but I found the source and found that it was a verbatim quote (which was not clear), hence the odd mark-up which I added to highlight this. I am not totally convinced it adds to the page, but I'd rather have a discussion about it rather than just removing. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't have access to the sources, I'm indifferent to the removal, and will leave it to you ... just wanted Rex to let us know if there was a reason that wasn't obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropological and historical evidence

[edit]

The oldest evidence of geophagia practised by humans comes from the prehistoric site at Kalambo Falls on the border between Zambia and Tanzania (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2000). Here, a calcium-rich white clay was found alongside the bones of Homo habilis (the immediate predecessor of Homo sapiens).

— Peter Abrahams, Geophagy and the Involuntary Ingestion of Soil[1]: 446 

pronunciation

[edit]

Anyone know how to pronounce the title of this page? I assumed it was geo-fagia, but have never actually heard anyone speaking the word.JMWt (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Google Translate you can listen to the pronounciation, I assume it is correct, see here (click on the loudspeaker symbol). EvM-Susana (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that is correct, that's why I'm asking. JMWt (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geophagia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'impact on health' section

[edit]

"contain high levels of calcium, copper, magnesium, iron and zinc that are critical for pregnant women and peasants" - a rather peculiar pairing of 'pregnant women and peasants', one (well thinking of it, actually both) of which, i belive, could be a subcategory of the other. (and none of which are homogenuous groups in relation to geophagia.) i suppose, the phenomenon being vittnessed among a certain population that is shorthanded here by reflection to their occupation as 'peasants' but, i am sure the conclusion that peasants being a distinct geophagous group does not stand. perhaps it'd be more correct to say that there is a publication that deals with vittnessed geophagia among a certain population of peasants of a given time and spatial denomination.80.99.38.199 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Fake/wrong citation?

[edit]

The Peter Abrahams citation is full of grammatical errors. How come? Equinox ◑ 18:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye Equinox. Quite frankly, I do not think it is the most reputable source at all (at least in a historical perspective); see my section below entitled: Talk:Geophagia#Nearly universal? Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly universal?

[edit]

"Geophagia is nearly universal around the world in tribal and traditional rural societies (although apparently it has not been documented in Japan or Korea)."<ref name=Abrahams2013 />

--Is the exemption limited to just Japan and Korea, which gives way to it apparently being "nearly universal"? If so, I do not know how reliable author Peter Abrahams (2013) is. I have a source (1907) that definitively mentions Japanese use in detail in Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: Volume I (Calcutta, India) (Subsection): Earth-Eating and the Earth-Eating Habit in India. By David Hooper and Harold H. Mann (6 December 1905) Pg. 249. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is lacking possibly due to a misguided approach

[edit]

"Geophagia" the act of eating earth has been used since the beginning of time (or as far back as records can show), before its association with the "medical disorder" PICA. I believe that this article as it stands, leans far too heavy towards the modern perspective, in distain, rather than accruing all the facts and history behind "eating earth". I have found a lot more on the subject without these biases. If "geophagia" is going to cover earth-eating, it needs to touch-down on the possible benefits for the non-scientific term it is also covering, which is vaguely being mentioned in this article, albeit a couple of sentences. For example, there is an article on medicinal clay, which is one type of earth substance that briefly mentions the positive uses for internal use but with much more history behind it, though that is neither a GA-article either. Possible additions to this article (from me) is on the horizon. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: GEOG 479 Primate Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessica Zauri (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jessica Zauri (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geophagia is nearly universal around the world in tribal and traditional rural societies (although apparently it has not been documented in Japan or Korea). In the ancient world, several writers noted the phenomenon of geophagia.


This makes it sound like it is absolutely normal. If someone sat down with a plate of dirt at your table you're going to be calling the men in white coats. It should be conveyed to the audience that this is absolutely an abnormal practice and most every 'documented' mention that makes it 'universal around the world' is in the field of psychiatry, psychology, and medicine where people who were deemed to be abnormal were found to be eating dirt.

The way this article is written I half excepted it to be sponsored by Bob's Bag'o'Dirt Edible Dirty Company, it sounds like you're actively promoting it. Even down to the primates section reading in the clear lines like "Studies show it has numerous medical benefits," then lists three obscure benefits for one sub species of primate only. People will read that in the same way pulp media pump out 'studies show' claims and think they need to go out to the back yard and eat dirt to not get intestinal parasites. The writing of this article is just whack. 2001:8003:2961:AD00:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Abrahams2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geophagia&oldid=1207385867"