Talk:Phytochemical

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements High‑importance

	Phytochemical is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

Misleading Dillard source

This is only an abstract from a 25 year old publication, and makes misleading statements of bioactivity, such as "discrete bio-activities towards animal biochemistry and metabolism", and "could provide health benefits' - with 10 misleading, unproven effects in vivo; the evidence is only from outdated in vitro research, which is far too preliminary to mention in an encyclopedia, WP:MEDINVITRO. Zefr (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used it to state "health benefits". I used the source simply to show "components" (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the Dillard abstract is misleading for general users, as it plainly implies health benefits.

Reading the whole sentence from the LPI, "While there is ample evidence to support the health benefits of diets rich in fruit, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts, evidence that these effects are due to specific nutrients or phytochemicals is limited".

It could be specified further: evidence for physiological effects of non-nutrient phytochemicals is absent from the medical literature, WP:MEDASSESS. Zefr (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:MEDASSESS" I didn't use the source to show any of the parts you stated; "components" is the only factor I've used, The fact that wikipedia policy could be used to state that the source is bad/wrong/insufficient/outdated/not usable isn't necessary. That the policy you use could be correctly applied to the source for some reason hasn't suppressed the source at the publisher: onlinelibrary.wiley.com. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 21:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you screening out of the source isn't necessary - the factors in wikipedia are a stable fact "phytochemicals" + "components" - that a source has now considered outdated information doesn't need to be a problem if there isn't any copy which repromotes. You're discussing something which I didn't state/show. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"make up"

@Zefr: You returned this phrase without any support against my criticism on the basis of: "the Dillard source is misleading and only an abstract - discuss on talk page". Is there some position you would like to state as how this choice is preferential? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC) If I isolate the phrase: "make up" the implication "cosmetics" "Cosmetics are composed of mixtures of chemical compounds derived from either natural sources" seems relevant but isn't a meaning possible in the sentence; is disincluded except is an existing meaning - what I'm stating is: "make up" is an idiomatic phrase for something. To apply "make up" - is to apply a substance which changes the color of someones face - except looking at the words: "make" "up" - the semantic "make"=to produce a different thing by the application of a colorful substance, "up" - the act of lifting up the substance to the face, would be the probable meaning of how "make up" is the common/possible phrase for "the application of cosmetic(s)". You simply use "make up" but both words have a basic meaning which isn't shown in reality. In the context of the article "make": a plant consciousness made itself/God made the plant ("Argument from design"), or, in human consciousness the idea of phytochemicals is a cultural construct which we as humans know as the components of a plant - we "make" the plant by the science of phytochemistry: in textbooks etc; "up" the plant grows upwards - this could be the reason why"make up" could be used except "make" isn't possible I think. The phrase used "make up" is idiomatic - you use it to mean: that are the complete components of: like the pyramids were built/like a house or building is constructed from it's foundations: made upwards - but this isn't necessary to imply and it isn't true either. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 21:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what this is all about. "Makeup" (one word) is in the lede of the cosmetics article, and is clearly not intended for the definition or role of plant phytochemicals. In the context of a plant, all the phytochemicals do actually make up (constitute) the whole plant – the intent of the sentence. It's simply a natural language issue. Zefr (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]