Talk:Health effects of wine

Lede section copyedit

A few sentences needed a fairly radical re-jig so I hope I've preserved the original meaning and intent. Not sure I'll have the time to do much more for a day or two but hopefully this will set it off on the right track. --mikaul^talk 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-alcoholic wine

Why not mention of non-alcoholic red wine?? I saw some study that it has the same benefits but without the harmful alcohol. Seems much smarter to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.134.134 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall it has some'wine is badbut not the same benefits. Alcohol itself may be of some benefit, so describing it as "harmful" would be inaccurate. If you can find a reliable source (ideally a peer-reviewed scientific paper) that outlines exactly what those benefits might be I don't see why it shouldn't be included. --mikaul^talk 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Metals

I have removed the crap about the heavy metals. The buzz about the Slovakian and Hungarian wines were clear cut rubbish and all the media crap was a part of a very ugly and unethical marketing campaign. Both in Hungary and Slovakia there are hundreds - if not thousands - of wine-makers and so thousands of different wines. There are strict regulations of the analytical parameters of the wines in order to get sales permission from the authorities. Exceptions exists and errors happen... but those are exceptions and errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.252.4 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Newsworthy items covered by reliable sources are not "crap". I recommend you read up on the Wikipedia:Five pillars. One very important pillar is that we strive for a neutral point of view. This means not "sweeping under the rug" or intentionally hiding unsavory items. If they are of encyclopedic relevance, and have sound reliable sourcing, they should be covered even if it doesn't shed the best of light on the subject. I love wine (especially European wine) as much as the next folk but I am not going to white wash a wine article free of negative news because of that. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Also if you have any reliable sources that discredits the news links in the section or offer a different perspective then please suggest them with some proposed wording to improve the section. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a serious discussion in the Hungarian media by the time when this crap was published in the UK. The section can be improved significantly by removing the part what is showing the Slovakian and Hungarian wines - with other European wines together-

Your source is far from reliable. It is a semi scientific tabloid crap. It does not list what wines they were testing and on what base they were selecting those wines. I seriously doubt that they tested all the thousands of Hungarian wines available on the market.

In the Hungarian media there were several article published, if you read Hungarian just use google. I have found this page in english: http://www.vinography.com/archives/2008/10/dangerous_wine_or_dangerous_re.html

I myself find ridiculous to even argue about this. Few incompetent idiot have published a major stupidity based on a childishly executed far not scientifically experiment. That is it. Referring to this crap as reliable source is as ridiculous as the topic itself and arguing about this topic is pointless.

I can not and will not convince you that this part of the otherwise good wiki article is wrong and stupid. Whoever owns this article and whoever has the power to change it should think a bit and realize that in this form this article is violating exactly those rules what you kindly referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.252.4 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted a blanking and taken the time to check out the issue at hand. Yes, in that order. There are procedures to modifying content on Wikipedia and blanking entire sections without consensus is definitely not one of them. Please, try to respect the preferred methodolgy here and we might just achieve a conclusion to everyone's satisfaction.
I'm very inclined to support the retention of the material in this section as-is, given the well-sourced published conclusions that form the basis for it. However I do think there may be room for maneuver. The research in question seems to be published in two parts: one paper in March 2008 [1] and one in October [2]. The earlier one simply recognises elevated levels of certain heavy metals in wine relative to apple juice and stout. The second investigates a variety of wines – does it matter where the sample data comes from? I don't think so, personally – and draws upon the earlier paper to grade wine producing areas accordingly. My first thought is that we should use these papers as our sources, not the WebMD articles take on them. The second is that the conclusions should be repeated verbatim here without comment, except to be careful to point out, as the papers do, that some (not all) wines in these selected regions have tested higher than others. I do believe that the section itself is very relevant to the subject of wine and health; if there are still objections to these findings they should be based on equally reliable sources and not the rantings of a self-published oenophile blogger. --mikaul^talk 07:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you in many points. First of all, the crap is crap, does not matter how nicely you put it and how well you package. Both the study and the WebMD article are clear cut rubbish. If a blond and blue eyed little boy has stolen your bicycle you can not say that blond and blue eyed little boys are bicycle thieves. We do not need any consensus on that. The so called "reliable sources" in the topis are doing exactly this type of unethical generalization and I am strongly convinced that Wikipedia is not the place where these type of misleading and destructive crap should be promoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you disagree on many points. Also sad to see you are unable to express that disagreement beyond references to "crap" and formulation of facile analogies. I'm afraid it seems no matter how strong your convictions, they'll be unlikely to be taken into account on this particular issue. --mikaul^talk 10:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not know what do you expect. It seems that you agree that if a group of "scientist" took few Hungarian wines and measured that they contain too much heavy metals then it is fair and OK to state that in general Hungarian wines contain too much heavy metals.

You are not sorry and you are not sad, do not be kidding. You are ignorant and you have right to be one. It is OK to be ignorant, but it is not OK to generalize and write negative, destructive and above all totally false statements in a Wikipedia article. And my analog is correct. Whoever has rights to fix the article has a chance to make the Wikipedia a more reliable and more accure information source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What I expect is that you do me the courtesy of reading what I write. I specifically said (quote) be careful to point out, as the papers do, that some (not all) wines in these selected regions have tested higher than others. No generalisation, actually a qualification proposed under the clearly misguided impression that you might be receptive to compromise. Please desist from insulting and deliberately misinterpreting those who contribute here in good faith. For your information, everyone has "rights" to edit the article, within reason. No-one has any right to disrupt and vandalise any article in pursuit of their unsubstantiated opinions and personal axe-grinding. I think you have stated your dissatisfaction with more than enough vigour. If you have nothing constructive to contribute, please stop wasting my time. --mikaul^talk 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My constructive contribution is simple that I try to draw your attention on the fact that the article contains a false statement. In my opinion that statement should be removed from the article. As long the text "The countries producing wines with the highest level of heavy metals include..." is in the article I am right and you are wrong. Regardless that you can put your opinion nicely and I phrase mine as I would phrase in any normal conversation. The fact that you do not like my style and my analogs does not make my point less correct. I have not insulted anybody, and if you feel so I honestly apologize you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thank you. In my culture, describing a person as "ignorant" is a fairly strong insult; I do appreciate this may not be the case in yours. I'm glad (no, I mean it, I am quite relieved) to see we have managed to narrow your objection down to a particular phrase. I agree, that sentence could be re-written to be less accusative and focus more on individual wines rather than individual countries, but it may come down to what we can source in the way of counter-balancing sources. Basically, I think the science is ok but the results have been way over-generalised. I'd like to allow a short time for other editors to consider the issue before making any substantial changes, however I'd certainly suggest we consider incorporating commentary from this article that mentions (among other useful opinions) routine testing by Canadian import regulators failing to pick up excessive levels. There's also a later article requiring subscription (very annoying) that might have been interesting too. There may be other, better sources but I'm afraid my wiki time is up for the day. --mikaul^talk 12:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I definitely like the the article from the winespectator.com and I find it more insightful and informative than the article linked as source here. In all European wine producing country there is an authority to control the wine production and demand official analytical tests before the bottled wine gets approved to enter the market. The standard of accepted analytical parameters might be different country by country but it is not significant. I hope the editors of this article will consider to rephrase the chapter or at least that particular sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.156 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Review

I'm no medical expert but Ive seen enough here to be quite concerned on a number of levels, having re-read the two papers responsible for the controversy, regarding the NPOV the WebMD article lends to this section. Here are my main concenrns; some input from others, particularly scientific types, would be appreciated:

1. Contrary to the WebMD article, nowhere in either paper is Parkinson's disease directly linked to wine consumption
2. Actual "net" THQ levels in the samples tested are hugely inflated by the presence of vanadium, a substance about which little is known as regards long-term health implications. Levels of others (eg manganese) are actually stated to be "as expected" for any plant-based beverage or foodstuff
3. The British NHS website (quite a good WP:RS for this topic) in response to the Naughton-Petroczi findings, cautions wine drinkers against reading too much into them. The following points are made in response to the papers:
   1. There was deliberate overestimation of risk "to avoid underestimation"
   2. Findings were based on unverified secondary data
   3. "Lumping together" of specific metal ion amounts (the vanadium issue I mentioned above) possibly invalidates the data
   4. Although it posits lifetime-long risks, some of the metals have completely unknown long-term effects (vanadium again)
4. Pretty much all responses to the papers I can find point to the lack of specific grape varieties, soil types, production methods or even individual regions in reporting different levels per producing country. This is like reporting the discovery of a rat turd in rice from a paddy field in the outskirts of Changzhou and concluding that all Chinese rice contains rat shit. This is the issue our IP contributor raised and does, it has to be said, represent a massive generalisation and gross misrepresentation of wines from certain countries.

I'd like to leave this open to comment for a day or so but my feeling is that we should re-write this to cite (a) the original papers, then (b) the NHS article, then (c) conclude with the WebMD and WineSpectator reporting, all under the section heading of "Heavy metals in wine controversy". --mikaul^talk 08:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikaul, I have no problem with you rewriting the section as you've always edited in good faith and with a NPOV style. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get onto it :) mikaul^talk 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Historical role" question

The first section's second sentence read: Wine's close association with made it a logical tool for these early medical practices. I don;t have a copy of the source document handy but I made a guess at "ritual". --mikaul^talk 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Wine vs. White

I always here that it is red wine that is good for you, it may be just the popular choice for study, but I am pretty sure it is because grape skins are only used in making red wine, so shouldn't there be more mention on the difference? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The blanket statement that "Red wine is good for you" is a myth, since the health properties of red wine will vary widely passed on grape variety, wine region and some decisions made during the wine making process. Not every glass of red wine is created equal so you can't make such blanket statements. There are also some white wines that are made with some skin contact. I think the section you are looking for about the health benefits in the skins of the grape is Wine_and_health#Resveratrol. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wine 'does not boost heart health'

http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/behind-the-headlines-archive/-wine-does-not-boost-heart-health/5015131.article 92.15.0.66 (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And see also the example described in Correlation does not imply causation. 92.15.24.90 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

recent move?

Not sure I agree that this is a list?? What was the purpose of the move? --Stefan ^talk 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This entry is clearly written in the style and has the contents of an article (prose) and not a list (bulleted collection of related topics). The move should be undone. Boghog (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also agree...poor move. DMacks (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that it needs to be moved back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is alright: I boldly moved it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stefan ^talk 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

I have been going through this article and others related to natural phenols and polyphenols and trying to improve them. Another editor reverted some of my deletions here, which I made on the basis that they violate wikipedia's sourcing policies. The edit note for the reversion said "no such violation, so restored important info". We do not agree on that.

This article is called "health benefits of wine". I assume everybody will be on the same page with the reasoning that most of the content in the article (anything about health) will therefore be subject to WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS is a guideline, that falls within the basic policy on sourcing, WP:PSTS, which is within the policy on "no original research" WP:OR - which in turn is one of the "core content policies" within WP:NPOV, which is one of the five pillars of wikipedia. So the way we use sources while editing traces directly back to the fundamentals of wikipedia.

WP:PSTS, again, is policy and it says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

That is a paragraph that I wish people would read 100 times before they start editing - so much of the spirit of wikipedia is in there. Do you see how use of 2ndary and 3iary sources is the go-to option, and primary sources are to avoided, so as to avoid OR and WP:UNDUE? It is a great thing.

WP:PSTS is clear about scientific papers -- it says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." It goes on to say, with respect to primary sources (the bold is from the original - I did not add it): "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."

Again - the policy could not be more clear about what it means when it says primary sources "should be avoided" and "use them carefully" - the limits are very strict.

Finally, we get to WP:MEDRS which falls 100% within everything said above -- and makes the sourcing policy even stricter when discussing health, which it defines broadly.

Here is what it says:
A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.
A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate textbooks, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources.
All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources."

The long descriptions of the 3 clinical studies on wine that I deleted, are all based on primary sources. And as WP:OR states, "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." The long descriptions violate WP:UNDUE - it takes a secondary source to analyze them, put them in perspective, draw conclusions from them. We cannot do that, as wikipedia editors. There are secondary sources for health benefits of wine -- the article should be based on them, not on primary sources.Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the material you removed was sourced to various articles on webmd.com, which as far as I know, is considered a reliable secondary or tertiary source, containing articles written by medical professionals, that summarize medical research for laypeople, and therefore would be appropriate for inclusion. If you have a problem with that source, perhaps it would be best taken to WP:RSN. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I left the 4 webmd sources - I agree that it is OK (however it is weaker than a review article (a secondary source) in the peer reviewed literature, so if there is a contradiction the peer reviewed 2ndary source would overrule. I did cut out health content based on Forbes, Wine Spectator, several primary scientific articles, and the Oxford Companion to Wine -- and health content that was unsourced at all.Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK... In this edit you removed webmd sources, which is what prompted me to leave my previous comment. I didn't see anything in that edit sourced to Wine Spectator and others; perhaps you removed them previously, and I agree that they don't belong. I also agree that citing the peer reviewed literature would be preferable to citing webmd, but that's a reason to fix the sourcing rather than remove the material. The only thing that bothers me is the volume of text associated with each webmd source. Perhaps there's some OR there that could be excised. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasonable conversation! I see what you are saying now - thanks for pointing it out. Talking about webmd, we need to make some distinctions, as webmd has a lot of different kinds of content. It has content that describes diseases and common treatments. These are what I had in mind when I responded above. Webmd also has news, reporting and sometimes commenting on recently published primary research articles. These vary in quality a lot - this one is great (http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20080707/resveratrol-may-prevent-breast-cancer) providing useful commentary and context (for example dosing/bioavailability) (which was left out of the wikipedia content) and this one (http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20081007/red-wine-may-cut-risk-of-lung-cancer), which adds little to no value to the primary study. While the breast cancer one is great, it is still only discussing in vitro results, so really has no place in a discussion of health per se. The low quality one on lung cancer discusses a single (big!) clinical trial, so it too is problematic, but at least it is about a clinical trial. The ideal source for health content is something like one of the Cochrane Reviews, if you are familiar with them, which go over all the published clinical studies, analyze their quality, and draw conclusions from them about clinical health care. Anyway, I think it is debatable whether we should blanket-OK webmd news reports as 2ndary sources - I think you have to look at them one by one and even then, think about what they are covering.... when I deleted the content and sources for webmd in the cancer section, I was using a high standard of WP:MEDRS as there is a lot of hype around cancer prevention and wine, and as MEDRS says, "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should blanket-OK anything found on webmd. And where possible, sources cited in a webmd article should be used instead of the webmd article. Articles written for laypeople tend to be quite sloppy with sourcing; I am constantly frustrated by science reporting in 'reliable' mainstream news outlets that don't give journal citations when they should. Fortunately webmd has a collapsed section at the end of each article showing their sources.

I am SO with you here!Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

For now I think the webmd sources are OK. The end of each webmd article shows the sources they used. In the cancer section:

• Webmd reference 20 cites: Chao, C. CancerEpidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, October 2008; vol 17: pp 2692-2699. If we can find a copy of that and it agrees with the claim for reference 20, then it would be preferable to use that.
• Webmd reference 21 cites three journal articles, two professors, and the American Cancer Society. That reference is probably a good enough summary.
• Webmd reference 22... I don't know what to make of it. It's called "Study Shows Wine Drinkers With Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Less Likely to Die or Have Relapse" and talks about a study, but cites only a conference and several personal interviews. I don't see actual studies being cited there.
• Webmd refernce 23, about resveratrol and breast cancer: This one looks OK as a summary of multiple academic papers (a short summary too) although finding the best academic paper to cite instead may be a challenge if all one can access are abstracts.

I'd say for the most part, we could leave the webmd references as is, except for #20 and #22. Reference #22 would require more in-depth investigation than I have given in the few minutes it took me to write this reply. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! btw the user who actually reverted has not shown up here yet... I wonder if he/she will...Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Examining Wran's contribution history, probably not, unless those swaths you deleted are removed once again. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'll be honest, watching the edits yesterday I did feel like you were using more a hatchet than a scalpel in your deletion. But I appreciated the good faith efforts being made towards improving the article so I figured I would just wait until you were done before revisiting the article and seeing if anything truly important needed to be added back in. I'm not a fan of the eradication of reliable wine references especially since this is a wine-related article. I would also caution against a slavish devotion to WP:MEDRS since this wine article was meant to be written for the average reader (and not med students), so having sources that are readable to the average, everyday user serves a benefit especially for WP:V sake. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  When a wine-related article crosses over into providing information about effects on human health and particularly benefits, WP:MEDRS must come into play. The topic of this article is health effects, so the sources should be reliable for the topic. The sources we'd normally consider reliable about wine have zero credibility for medical claims, and shouldn't be cited for that purpose. We could use wine sources for facts like the amount of resveratrol or whatnot in different wines, but not for health effects. My discussion above was all about preserving claims cited to a fairly reliable medical source written for laypeople. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment agne! This wine related article is all about "health" so it for sure falls under MEDRS. I agree with you that far too much of the medical content in wikipedia gets written too technically, to the point where the content doesn't make sense to the public anymore. That is almost as bad as putting quackery in. Quackery has no place in wikipedia at all and quackery is what MEDRS was built to quash. But too-technical language has no place in wikipedia either - one of the pillars of wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia aimed at the general public. The pillars are more important than anything else, and MEDRS stands on them -- so the people who apply MEDRS and write too technically, are hitting the mark in one way but missing the forest for the trees (oh my metaphors are terrible). Editors can do both at once - use MEDRS sources and write for the general public. That is the ideal.Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that MEDRS has no place here but I caution against a slavish devotion to that above readability and accessibility for laypeople, which are the type of people more likely to be reading a wine article versus an explicitly medical article. But again, I recognize the good faith efforts being taken here which is why I have taken a step back to see how the article ends up. I appreciate Jytdog comment above about maintaining accessibility as a pillar and that does quell some of my concerns. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

:) If I or anybody else gets too high-falutin' with language please call me on it (or anybody else). You can point them here WP:NOTJARGON and tell them to look at #8 (that section I linked to, is on the page that describes the first pillar). I am completely sympathetic to your concern! 22:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

an editor just added the following source .Guilford J and Pezzuto J (2011) Wine and Health: A Review Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 62:4 I think this fails MEDRS because this is not a medical journal - but will leave it for now. Am submitting it to the MEDRS talk board. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 study in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling

User:Pol098 and User:Amatulic‎ - wikipedia bases content on secondary sources as per WP:PSTS. The guideline for health-related information, WP:MEDRS, stands squarely on WP:PSTS and makes it clear that for scientific research, the publication that this paragraph is based on, is exactly a primary source. Primary sources in the biomedical arena are infamously unreliable - this is why, for health-related information, we look for reviews of the literature - secondary sources - that summarize the state of knowledge in the field - from which to create content. This paragraph does not belong in Wikipedia. Please delete it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of this article is supported by sources not meeting these guidelines (or unsourced), for example, the entire section Health effects of wine#Psychological and social. By and large much text supported this way enhances the article. The same is true for much of Wikipedia. If there is consensus that all text unsupported by sources rigidly meeting Wikipedia guidelines be deleted (including the study in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling), I may attempt to do this; but I'm not going to make the effort unless there is clear consensus. There seems to be consensus that text published on WebMD is acceptable, but primary sources, Wine Pros, Wine Spectator, Web sites of suppliers of supplements, etc., are not. For anybody saying that rules are rules and must be followed: please remember WP:IAR.

By the way, if the perceived problem is not actually that the paragraph being discussed fails WP:MEDRS, but that it is considered undesirable for some other reason (with MEDRS merely a means of having it removed), that is an entirely different matter, which may have merit. This requires a different discussion.

Opinions below this paragraph please: should I remove all content not strictly meeting guidelines? There will be disagreements about what is guideline-conformantly sourced, but if anything deleted is considered to meet the rules it is easily reinstated. Pol098 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite distinct from my previous comments on MEDRS in general and relevant only to the paragraph being discussed, MEDRS considers primary sources undesirable rather than forbidden, and caters for them saying "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source ... this description should follow closely the interpretation of the data given by the authors ... Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors". The paragraph says that "a study finds", not "it is the case that" (and is thus unquestionably true), and essentially says little more than the full title of the journal article cited. Pol098 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes a lot of this article needs to be reworked as it is based on invalid sources. I agree with that. Let's step back here. If you read the intro to MEDRS, it is clear that the goal is that the health-related information presented in WIkipedia - which a lot of people turn to, should be based on the best sources we can find - the ones that express the consensus of the medical community; people rely on Wikipedia and we have a responsibility to present really solid information. Secondary sources (reviews, ideally of clinical studies) are best, similar to Cochrane reviews. We should not include information based on single primary sources; they are not reliable for health related information. WebMD is kind of OK as it tends to present overviews, but it is still sub-par compared to the best kinds of sources that are available. Why do you want to present half-based ideas about health in WIkipedia? I really disagree with doing that. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that all primary-sourced (and other non-reliably-sourced) text should be removed from this and similar articles, or that the particular work supporting the paragraph under discussion is unreliable and the paragraph should be removed? If the former, I'll do it (for this article, not all of Wikipedia), given a clear consensus; if the latter, you may be right, let's discuss it. Certainly a lot of respectably-published research is either found to be erroneous, or driven by a hidden, often commercial, agenda. Pol098 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This topic is not so obscure that the liberal use of primary sources should be accepted. Would support a rewriting of this article solely with secondary sources per WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSTS, and removal of any text/sources not compliant with MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In general, with existing content about health supported only by a primary source, if I can find a secondary source relevant to the content I replace the source, and modify the source to keep what is supportable and add whatever needs adding. If I cannot find a secondary source, I delete the content and source. For new additions - like the paragraph we are discussing, I do as I did - revert the addition and say a 2ndary source is needed; quite often the original poster goes and finds but sometimes they never come back. Re-instating it, as was done here, is rare. If you really think this content is important to keep, can you find a MEDRS-compliant secondary source that supports it? With respect to the article as a whole, I did a bit of this some time ago and intended to come back but have not yet, but it has been on my watchlist ever since... (to make sure you are fully answered, I am saying that the current source is not what we should be using for health-related content; I will not go so far as to it is "unreliable" in the policy sense, but it is not what we should be doing. Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

harvard mouse study on resveratrol

• In this dif on 1/12, User:Yobol had deleted the following content with edit note " non MEDRS":

"Tests on mice demonstrate conclusive proof that resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, improves health and longevity. (ref)"New Study Validates Longevity Pathway". Harvard Medical School. 7 March 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013.(/ref)" (ref markup changed for discussion)

• In this dif on 1/22, User:Amatulic reverted that deletion and copyedited the undeleted text, with edit note "this is a secondary source according to WP:MEDRS"

• I re-deleted in this dif with edit note "press release is not a reliable source under MEDRS - let's discuss on Talk please - I will open it in a moment"

And indeed, a press release is not a reliable secondary source - they are not reliable for much even under plain old WP:RS. (and MEDRS says "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources." A secondary source under MEDRS is a review of the literature, ideally of clinical trial data - MEDRS says quite clearly "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations." User:Amatulic please explain how you see a press release as being an acceptable secondary source under MEDRS. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog's assessment; the source is a press release by the employer of the senior author of the study, and not an independent evaluation of the study that places it in context of other sources that WP:MEDRS implies when discussing high quality secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And I disagree. The original Science article describing the research could have easily have been cited. The original text Yobol reverted was also unacceptable; if you notice, my restoration more accurately characterized the study's findings, rather than stating outright in Wikipedia's narrative voice that "tests on mice demonstrate conclusive proof...."

The reversion of my restoration was done too hastily, I think. Please review and reconsider. With the original source, the text would fully comply with WP:MEDRS requirement that "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source." ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary animal studies are sources we generally avoid for medical claims (or discussion about human health) because they often do not translate appropriately when studied in humans. Certainly I would expect that there are plenty of high quality review articles on the health effects of wine and there is no need to use a primary animal study against the cautions of MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this particular study has received ample coverage in secondary independent sources, therefore it is notable enough to include.

http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/march2013/03252013resveratrol.htm

http://www.aaas.org/news/science-compound-red-wine-may-help-treat-age-related-diseases

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/resveratrol-does-provide-anti-aging-benefits-study-shows/

...among others. Therefore, I have restored it.

There is nothing wrong with citing animal studies as long as it is clear that it's an animal study being cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Amatulic I am not following you. The actual source in the specific content we are discussing, was a press release, which is not an acceptable source under MEDRS. Please do not go back and edit content further until we are done talking. Thanks! 140.251.150.96 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Examples of appropriate secondary sources would be review articles published in the peer-reviewed literature, not news articles. Certainly this article should not be a warehouse or dumping ground for every primary animal study published about wine. Information implying health effects really need to be cited to high quality MEDRS compliant sources like review articles. If this particular study has had such an important effect on the literature, there is bound to be high quality review articles discussing it by now. Yobol (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not how we define notability here.

I have no problem with removing the press release, and I have no problem removing content based on press releases. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, as I have stated, that has been substituted with the cite to the actual study -- a fact which you are failing to notice in your repeated reversions. You, also, need to cease your removals until we are done. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not use a recent MEDRS-compliant secondary source that discusses potential health benefits and risks of resveratrol? What is so special about this study? We are not a newspaper. The thrust of MEDRS is that Wikipedia sources content from reviews so that it can present solid health information to the public - what there is consensus in the field to say; we don't splash around the most recent shiny penny.... (and hopefully you are aware, User:Amatulic, that only something like 25% of primary studies turn out to be replicable, and hopefully you are aware that GSK spent ~$720M to buy Sirtris, founded by one of the authors of this study and the lead drug candidate of which was resveratrol, which has pretty much failed its clinical trials). So really - why do you want to discuss this primary study on resveratrol in Wikipedia at all? Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The content that User:Amatulic most recently inserted says: "A 2913 study on mice demonstrated that resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, directly activates a protein known to promote health and longevity in animals.(ref)"Evidence for a Common Mechanism of SIRT1 Regulation by Allosteric Activators". Science. 339 (6124): 1216–1219. 8 March 2013. doi:10.1126/science.1231097.(/ref)" Some points:

• date is wrong
• the content is silly - Sinclair has been saying that resveratrol activates SIRT1 for about 10 years now. The "big news" in the Science article is some really detailed structural information about what part of SIRT1 must be contacted so that SIRT1 can be activated. Has nothing to do with resveratrol per se. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side-note, Amatulic sited WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as reasons to include this information. Since notability is about whether an topic deserves its own Wikipedia article (usually in the context of a article deletion discussion), and has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable or deserves WP:WEIGHT, I'm perplexed at why they cited these guidelines/policies. Yobol (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

champagne rat study

The other content that User:Amatulic has been trying to add since this dif is the following:

"A paper published in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling in 2013 concluded that phenolic acid intake, delivered via moderate champagne wine consumption, improved spatial working memory via the modulation of hippocampal and cortical protein expression/activation in mice. The study suggested that smaller phenolics such as gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, tyrosol, caftaric acid, and caffeic acid, in addition to flavonoids, were capable of exerting such improvements.(ref)Corona, G.; Vauzour, D.; Hercelin, J.; Williams, C. M.; Spencer, J. P. E. (2013). "Phenolic Acid Intake, DeliveredViaModerate Champagne Wine Consumption, Improves Spatial Working MemoryViathe Modulation of Hippocampal and Cortical Protein Expression/Activation". Antioxidants & Redox Signaling. 19 (14): 1676. doi:10.1089/ars.2012.5142.(/ref)(ref)University of Reading: Scientists reveal drinking champagne could improve memory, 7 May 2013(/ref)"

again we have a primary study (now one in which champagne is given to old rats), and a press release to boot. Another recent shiny penny. We don't source health-related content in Wikipedia on the latest primary study - we go slow, and rely on reviews that express consensus in the field. Really, we are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia. Please slow down User:Amatulic! 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not add that content. Looks to me like something that inadvertently got included in a revert.

And you are missing the point. We are not a newspaper, but we give due weight to reports, even primary sources, that have had wide coverage, per WP:DUE and WP:NOTABILITY. The guideline WP:MEDRS is a guideline that should be applied with common sense, not slavishly used as an excuse to expunge any and all primary sources without regard to their notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The health effects of wine are mainly determined by its "active ingredient alcohol."

I'm now translating this article into traditional Chinese. I'm not sure if the effects are determined by "alcohol", instead, I tend to believe the effects are determined by the "active ingredients in the alcohol". Can anybody comment on this? Thanks.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In that sentence, "alcohol" is one specific chemical (ethanol) that is in wine. It is the chemical whose effects are being highlighted. I think you are using "alcohol" to mean the entire beverage (wine, beer, etc.). The word is sometimes used with that meaning broader meaning, short for "alcoholic beverage" or a case of synecdoche, because that is the chemical whose effects are usually most relevant. DMacks (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the word determined here is awkward. Maybe "due to"? DMacks (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd like to rephrase my wording as "active ingredients in wine"ThomasYehYeh (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Need clarification if wine (or alcohol) stimulates or depresses appetite

In the section of Food intake, there seemed to have two conflicting statements "Wine has a long history of being paired with food and may help reduce food intake by suppressing appetite." and "Alcohol can stimulate the appetite so it is better to drink it with food." Can anybody help clarify? Thanks.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rheaxx666 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BL33701 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)