Talk:Umami/Archive 2

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^words_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

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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 [the flavor] 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 Wikipedia 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)

Japanese characters in description

With apologies to Jytdog, I miskeyed, saving a reversion without even an explanation. I'll go ahead and find a citation for the character representations, although I will also note that the Japanese article on the same topic describes the situation the same way. What I really object to here is that the description is incoherent with the glyphs removed. Strebe (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, finding sources some vague time in the future is not OK. you can restore when you have citations to provide Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you aware of what immediately prompted the removal, but it was this. Without a ref, editors have no way to verify that is just an alt glyph or changing the meaning to something nasty. WP:V is policy. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, why is the Japanese article not sufficient for now as a reference? My objection remains: The description as it stands is incoherent, and I cannot imagine a justification for why an incoherent state is more important to preserve than a coherent state that matches the same article in its native language; can be checked against the same article in its native language; that is being watched by people who know that language; and that only might be wrong (as long as you don’t know the glyphs yourself). Strebe (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how you find it incoherent. Would you please explain? To answer your question, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, per WP:USERGENERATED. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I see this article still remains unchanged

The subject of Umami may very well be complete nonsense. This issue is discussed in archive #2, where a user brings relevant information discrediting this subject, and is subsequently gang-edited by a posse of individuals who seem to be affiliated with each other, along with an administrator. 76.169.75.159 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Science does not consider umami to be complete nonsense. But if you feel the article does not represent the current state of knowledge, you are free to make specific suggestions for changes to the article based on reliable sources. Deli nk (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable Sources" don't always exist. This subject is not reliable to begin with, and never had any proper sources, it was mainly linked with tabloid web-junk. Only a single, faint, scientific source was tacked on at the very last moment after someone started complaining of this subjects credibility. Let me be frank by assuring you once again this subject is complete nonsense, this is within my expert opinion. There is only a single, biased source or organization which studies this subject, and is directly affiliated with the subjects inception. No one else has studied this subject in-depth to provide any reputable sources, and again, it's within my expert opinion this 'Umami' was created by individuals who have a very poor understanding of various things, including the English language. 172.115.25.178 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I also find it amusing how the people watching this article tend to pick and choose sources. The source which was brought up to denote this subject as being only a theory, and not any scientific fact, was indeed valid and clear to the point. I would also like to use this moment to assure everyone reading this; there is no such thing as a "5th taste". The creators of Umami seem to have misunderstood a common electrolytic chemical effect which stimulates one, or more, of the four previously established taste senses. And that these supposed Japanese scientists even went out of their way to name a few taste receptors, similarly as 'Umami' after this theory, further enforcing their poor judgement or comprehension. 172.115.25.178 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not nonsense but the claim that it is an essential flavor is debatable. Lede should not simply declare "is one of the five basic tastes" and the article cited to support this claim merely asserts the phrase "basic taste" without proving what is "essential". The research simply indicates that umami is distinct, but so are traditional notions of flavor like spicy (chili) or oily (potato chips). Chinese philosophy traditionally identified five flavors, four of which relate directly to taste buds. It is reasonable to note that umami's dependence on the presence of glutamates and the sudden surge of usage of this term (which was rarely used in dinner conversations in Japan itself) coincided with Ajinomoto rebranding MSG as "natural" flavoring around the turn of the century.Martindo (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Topics arising around Japanese dinner tables are irrelevant. Traditional Chinese philosophy is irrelevant. Ajinomoto’s rebranding is irrelevant. “Debatable” requires reliable sources. “Essential” is undefined and irrelevant. The salient question is whether there is a taste receptor for umami, which there is, while there is none for spicy or oily, for example. The latter conflates other sensory receptors with taste receptors. The literature already takes umami as a given in taste receptors due to the overwhelming evidence. See, as a tiny sampling of hundreds,

• Detection of Sweet and Umami Taste in the Absence of Taste Receptor T1r3
• Human receptors for sweet and umami taste
• A family of candidate taste receptors in human and mouse
• Perceptual variation in umami taste and polymorphisms in TAS1R taste receptor genes
• Molecular mechanism for the umami taste synergism

Could we please be done with this tedious contrarianism? This Talk page’s history is filled with this sort of fudging by umami-deniers who apparently cannot be bothered to look at the literature or who refuse to accept what they find. Strebe (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

When I see someone write "denier" I smell POV. In fact, I did look at the literature and mentioned it in my second sentence above. The article cited merely echoes 'basic taste" but does not prove it. It explores the science of receptors, but "flavor" is not only a matter of science, it is also an expression of culture. Perhaps I should call you a culture denier? I have no problem recognizing umami as a convenient label for a universal experience, but I question terms like "traditional" (when the article here openly admits it is a new discovery) and "essential". Martindo (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

you have been saying that since 2009. What part of "content is driven by reliable sources" do you not understand, eight years later? Bring compelling sources so we can make the change you want, or stop bringing this up already. I am not saying you are right or wrong. I am saying you are wasting everyone's time, including your own.Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Martindo, what •are• you going on about? You are the one who brought up “traditional” and “essential”, but now you question those terms? Huh?? “Essential” appears nowhere in the article. “Traditional” appears exactly once, as applied to the four basic tastes traditionally described by science and specifically •not• to umami. You claimed umami’s status as a basic taste is debatable, and your evidence was what Japanese don’t talk about over dinner, is what traditional Chinese philosophers thought, is what Ajinomoto did to rehabilitate their brand. And now you’re questioning your own use of “essential” and “traditional”. … … … And somehow this performance gives you the courage to call out someone for POV, which, by the way, is what belongs on a Talk page. Strebe (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

improving this article: distinct versus basic, and other issues

This article could be improved in several ways, such as a more direct comparison with flavor and descriptions that sound less contradictory. Some of the text also comes across as assertion or boosterism, particularly in places where a cited reference doesn't really match the article.

1. Lede

Stating "is a basic taste" sounds like assertion. Putting the conclusion before the evidence makes sense in Wikipedia, but not in the cited article by Torii et al who simply declare it before describing their scientific research. Identifying the distinct receptors of umami doesn't prove "basic" because a comparison with more traditional and well-known basic tastes is needed in order to establish that umami belongs to the same experiential (or philosophical) category. A better reference is needed here.

In addition, the difference between taste and flavor should be mentioned briefly, as it is in various other WP articles such as retronasal smell which describes the role of the olfactory sense in the experience of flavor, of which taste is only one component. Food scientists also recognize the role of the trigeminal nerve in the experience of pungency.

2. Some of the text sounds contradictory, referring to umami as "enhancing" flavor rather than being a primary or "basic" experience itself. This seems related to the interconnection between umami and glutamates, even though Zhang et al identified numerous peptides other than glutamates. For example, after the reference to 52 peptides, the very next sentence in paragraph 2 of Background states:

Its effect is to balance taste and round out the overall flavor of a dish. Umami enhances the palatability of a wide variety of foods.

Paragraph 3 of Discovery then says:

When foods rich in glutamate are combined with ingredients that have ribonucleotides, the resulting taste intensity is higher than would be expected from merely adding the intensity of the individual ingredients.

And then Paragraph 1 of Properties says:

By itself, umami is not palatable, but it makes a great variety of foods pleasant, especially in the presence of a matching aroma.

These three quoted statements all support the original branding of monosodium glutamate as a flavor enhancer rather than the irreducible or elemental nature of umami that "basic" implies.

3. The link between the rise of umami as a buzzword and the promotion of MSG by Ajinomoto corporation should also be mentioned in passing. It is clearly explained in It’s the Umami, Stupid. Why the Truth About MSG is So Easy to Swallow: Few remember that the food pariah and hot trend are so closely connected by reporter Natasha Geiling in Smithsonian magazine, which provides a fair history and is actually sympathetic to the use of MSG as a food ingredient. See http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/its-the-umami-stupid-why-the-truth-about-msg-is-so-easy-to-swallow-180947626/ Martindo (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. The cited paper isn't about proving that umami is a basic taste. It presupposes that umami is a basic taste because that has already been proved. Hundreds of scientific papers presuppose umami as a basic taste because that has already been proved. I agree we could use a better reference, since WP:PRIMARY is not ideal, but every time a WP:SECONDARY reference has been used, umami-deniers object by saying the source is not scientific or claiming that the source is not WP:RELIABLE. Peer-reviewed research is scientific and WP:RELIABLE; when many such papers state something as fact and none state otherwise, objections sound tendentious. There is no single paper that "proves" umami is a basic taste; the chain of evidence started with Ikeda and reached consensus status in the 90s. If there were any scientific objection, there would be research disputing the simple statements of umami being a basic taste that appear in many research papers. Where are these refutations? They don't exist because their premise is futile and their evidence is non-existent.

Actually, rereading the explanation of WP:SECONDARY, I retract what I said about the cited article being WP:PRIMARY; it is secondary: It doesn't purport to be research establishing umami as a basic taste. Instead, as per WP:SECONDARY, A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources... They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. I see no need to change the citation.

Martindo writes, Identifying the distinct receptors of umami doesn't prove "basic" because a comparison with more traditional and well-known basic tastes is needed in order to establish that umami belongs to the same experiential (or philosophical) category, but this is his personal, unscientific burden of proof, and nothing relevant to improving the article. Again, while irrelevant, I challenge "him" to demonstrate that this burden of proof has been met for any other of the basic tastes. Scientists identify basic tastes by the presence of taste receptors; no more, no less.

2. This basic rationalization applies to salt as well, so by this reasoning, salt is not a basic taste, either.

3. I don't object to mentioning that Ajinomoto has changed its marketing in response to umami's establishment as a basic taste, given reliable sources. I will certainly object to any whiff of conspiracy or cynicism.

Strebe (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Then why cite Torii as reference #1? The Guardian article cited as #2 does a superb job of explaining how umami came to be recognized, and why. Move it to #1 spot and ditch Torii (or move it elsewhere).

One problem with our argument is that you are insisting repeatedly on “settled science” with terms such as “presupposes”. However, WP pages related to umami (e.g., umami section of taste) still refer to “new” and “now” in describing the discovery and buzz of a taste beyond “traditional” ones. Descriptions that highlight recency and change do indeed suggest a burden of proof to establish “newcomer” umami as categorically the same as so-called traditional tastes. IMO, the Guardian article suffices for that. Of course, there is no research paper that proves categorization. This is why WP:SECONDARY is so important.

Unfortunately, this WP page retains connotations of excitement such as extraneous “and how about this?” tangents (e.g., Malcolm Gladwell’s passing reference to ketchup cited to support a speculative “may” near the end of the page). I think you would agree that it is more accurate and helpful to describe umami as an established phenomenon that doesn’t require tons of culinary examples to convince readers of its existence. Compare to the discussions on other “basic taste” pages.

Please reflect on this suggested reorientation/cleanup guide, even if you have an impulse to deny there is any boosterism still present on the page.

2. Salty or other basic tastes are not described repeatedly as enhancers. The plain fact is that umami doesn’t quite operate the same way as other “basic” tastes. Its enhancing function is referred to in many cited references as well as the page’s text. See also the Taste Receptors section.

I think there should be more focus on umami as a fundamental taste and less as an enhancer. The problem may be rooted in the over-abundant linkages with glutamates in the text. I noticed that your long reply somehow omitted responding to my comment about Zhang’s study of 52 peptides that activate umami receptors — why is the text so heavily oriented toward only one of them? This predominance leads to counter-experiential claims, like the repeated implication that tomatoes are inherently “meaty” (if so, why do chefs often add cream or grain to give tomato soup body?).

As I stated initially, the lede could be improved by adding a sentence to remind readers that flavor has three components, and taste is only one of them.

3. What do you consider an appropriate quote from Geiling’s article about the linkage of Ajinomoto and umami buzz? I trust that you accept Smithsonian as a reliable source.

4. Finally, I think “savory” should be avoided in attempts to define umami. It is only a rough translation of “umai” which has a much broader meaning than its role as a flavor adjective (from which Ikeda coined the noun form umami). In fact, New Oxford American English Dictionary notes the generalization of “savory” in English beyond its former usage as “salty rather than sweet”. Defining a type of taste as “savory” belongs in the Department of Redundancy Department, not in Wikipedia. Martindo (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

1. I agree with all of this. And yes, the breathless verbiage should go, but on the other hand, most people grew up learning The Four Basic Tastes. We don't see articles in popular press going on about bitter or salt as if to introduce them to readers, but we do still see such articles on umami, and this air needs to be reflected in the article. Certainly how that happens could stand improvement.

2. I disagree. Salt is used as a flavor enhancer and pretty much nothing else, and is endlessly described that way. See this, this, this, and a bazillion other articles a Web search turns up using "salt flavor enhancer" as search terms.

I also disagree that the way umami receptors operate is somehow special in comparison to the others. Each of the taste receptor families work differently. They have to: Salt is a single molecule. "Bitter" is a vast range of chemicals and compounds. "Sweet" is a range of chemicals that share some molecular commonalities. "Sour" is mostly acid-detection.

I did not remark on the peptide study because I don't disagree with reducing the article's attention to monosodium glutamate. Again, the article can use a lot of work.

As far as components of 'flavor' go, that's going to require citations and balance. Is it even relevant, given that the article is about umami and its relationship to taste? Flavor has its own article.

3. Geiling's article doesn't say anything about such a 'linkage'. Ajinomoto is noted in exactly one paragraph whose temporal span is 1909 to the 1930s, and says nothing about Ajinomoto corporation using umami as a marketing device.

4. We're obliged to report, not influence. "Savory" is so widely given as a translation for umami that we do not have any choice but to report it that way. Adjectival "savory" is a reasonable translation for 旨い, but of course Ikeda's うま味 is not the noun form of 旨い. Just as Ikeda specialized umai, we are now specializing "savory" in English due to lack of better choices. I suspect, in the long run, people will quit doing that as umami becomes more widely recognized, but my opinion is irrelevant. Strebe (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Strebe, I see that you let my tweaks of the lede stand, so I'll bow out of this discussion and editing process. A few brief replies, following my numbering above.

1. There comes a point where the article should "stabilize" in the sense of being about an accepted phenomenon. Until then, I agree that some boosterism is useful, but the "extras" should be limited to what is verifiable rather than speculative (Gladwell quote near the end). And until then, it would be useful to clarify the distinction between flavor and taste in the lede, and also keep an eye on Zhang's research to see how it could broaden the text and solidify umami as distinct from "glutamate". These two suggestions would really flesh out the scientific emphasis -- and hopefully reduce your exasperation about "how can people not understand that umami is a real experience?"

2. If you feel deeply involved in working on this page (which I don't), please consider consistency issues I noted, particularly "enhancer" vs "basic". And I think that the Taste Receptors section could benefit by *less* info because its fine points seem to blur the overall explanation of the phenomenon being proven by taste bud research. There are times and places where too *much* evidence can distract or undermine an argument with excessive detail.

3. A timeline of Ajinomoto marketing efforts would reveal a lot of "coincidences" IMO. But that's not germane to the article, though a reference to "buzz" would be useful to provide context and thus reinforce the emergence of scientific research in recent years that was not directly or indirectly (e.g., funds to a university department rather than a specific researcher or project) sponsored by a company with a vested interest.

4. Language changes. Umami has entered English. Savory has become more general in English. Again, if you are wondering why people are unconvinced by the presentation of this topic, consider adapting some of the wording to fit modern usage. Sure, lots of the initial articles on umami didn't know how to explain it in English so they tried to "triangulate" by using more than one synonym. I think "meaty" is best (glutamates in mushrooms, but not tomatoes), brothy also makes sense (sort of tomatoes). Savory should be phased out. Using it is like saying "the taste of umami can be described as flavorful" -- redundancy that undermines the overall explanation. Martindo (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Umami. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103191356/http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C to http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

¨¨¨¨ The first external link (http://www.molecularrecipes.com/molecular-gastronomy/umami/) is non-responsive. Please recheck in a couple of days to decide if it needs to be redirected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.239.5 (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This really should be called savory

This article is very poorly named. Savory is the term that should be used. Look at this google word usage viewer. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=umami%2Csavory&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cumami%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bumami%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BUmami%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BUMAMI%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Csavory%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bsavory%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSavory%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSAVORY%3B%2Cc0

Clearly, savory is the common name. Umami literally translates to "plesant savory taste" as stated in the article. The word is literally defined as "savory"

This whole thing reads like someone wants to create a new word that means exactly the same thing as an already existing word, and forces it usage. It clearly is far more commonly known as savory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.42.202 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I see your point.

I'm looking at Savoriness and thinking, and one way or another, the two articles should become one. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There's two different senses. Umami/savory as a particular flavor, and savoriness as opposed to sweetness. There's nothing particularly umami about the the "savory" cupcakes in this article; cupcakes are usually sweet, and the listed cupcakes are non-sweet (i.e. savory). Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

True, true. I see what you mean. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• people have railed against "umami" as some kind of fake concept here on this talk page for a long time, and there is some of that bullshit in the OP, but the main point is good. The rename was suggested in 2011 in this section but nothing came of it. Part of the issue here is that Savory is a disambig page. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. You just redirected the article here. But Plantdrew feels it needs its own article. Therefore, the redirect is automatically controversial and requires discussion, yes? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

yeah it was pure OR. We can build some actual sourced encyclopedia content there if we like. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

“Savory” is just an existing word in English that’s been conscripted as a translation for umami because there isn’t any corresponding word in English and because “savory” does happen to include umami among the many flavors it has described for hundreds of years. Equating savory to umami is like equating humans to mammals. I’ve never heard anyone actually use “savory” when they mean umami. People say umami when they mean umami. They do sometimes use “savory” to help describe umami, but not as a synonym. Not really sure why this continues to be controversial… Strebe (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

are you perhaps a food scientist? i have never heard "umami" used in a non-scientific conversation. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

In LA, there's a burger restaurant named after and emphasizing umami, then expanding to San Francisco, Chicago and New York where the community restaurants have been "umamified". The restaurant chain says, "Umami means “deliciousness.” A French-Asian fusion restaurant in Paris is called Umami, La cinquième saveur - the fifth flavor. --Zefr (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

yeah the term became hip for a while. not sure how that is relevant? Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your assertion, Jytdog, was, “I have never heard "umami" used in a non-scientific conversation.” Zefr’s response was to provide clear, widespread examples of where umami is used in a non-scientific context, in an ongoing basis. Your response was, “Yes, it was faddish for awhile, but how is that relevant?” You are skilled at sabotaging your own credibility. Strebe (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well you can get all personal if you want but i meant what i said. Hipsters naming things is not conversation. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Plantdrew. "Savo(u)ry" means "tasty, but not sweet" in everyday English, while "umami" refers to one of the five basic tastes, a specific sensation produced by the presence of glutamates in food. That said, the former is not an encyclopedic topic, so I'm OK with Savouriness/Savoriness redirecting to Umami. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

references hijack?

The first reference* seems to have been hijacked and now leads to a completely unrelated site offering iPhones as prizes. I have no idea how to remedy this.

*"Umami – The Delicious 5th Taste You Need to Master!". Molecular Recipes. 24 March 2013.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Varnam (talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 

The credibility of this subject is questionable at best

'Umami' is more than likely a buzzword than anything else. Scientific sources of this subject are very questionable to say the least. If a vote were to be cast on your opinion of this subjects credibility, how would you vote? I'm curious as to how many people would agree with me here. 75.82.214.248 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not just a buzzword. The credibility of the science is not questionable. Edgeweyes (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's more exotic sounding than 'savory' and claiming that it's been 'discovered' when its existed as long as humans have had tongues is also far more a selling point. This concept, and article, and trend as a whole appears to be focused around 'ummamified' dining experiences, corporations bandwagoning to force a lame meme for foodies to eat up.

But, whilst I agree with the half a decade of dissenters pointing out the ridiculousness of this article and that it should be renamed to 'savoury' - it serves as a good example of why Wikipedia is not an academic resource and should never be used, relied upon, or cited by any serious person. And thus does more of a service to the greater good by remaining. Vergilianae (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Edgeweyes. Scientists have shown that it is a fifth flavor (with its own dedicated taste receptors) following the traditional four:salty, sour, sweet, and bitter. The choice of "umami" as its name may be a matter for debate but its existence is not. SPV (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Xian wei" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Xian wei. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 8#Xian wei until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"Osmazome" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Osmazome. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 8#Osmazome until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Other amino acids

The article only talks about glutamate and a couple of other non-amino acid compounds as sources of umami, but one of the references listed says 'We demonstrate that T1R1 and T1R3 combine to function as a broadly tuned L-amino-acid sensor responding to most of the 20 standard amino acids, but not to their D-enantiomers or other compounds.'

It seems clear that umami receptors respond to other amino acids (or their salts), not just glutamic acid, but I don't feel confident right now to get to the bottom of how broadly true this is. Anyone? --Oolong (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The article states, “Umami represents the taste of the amino acid L-glutamate and 5’-ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP).” Do you mean more broadly? Strebe (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are nucleotides; I don't believe they count as amino acids. I'm talking about the fact that other amino acids also trigger an umami response. --Oolong (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would want something more solid than that receptors “respond to” other amino acids, I guess. Is that response perceived? How is it perceived? How strongly? Many foods contain amino acids but are not considered to be “umami”. Strebe (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

References

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)