Talk:Gamma-Linolenic acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemicals WikiProject
Chemistry Portal
Gamma-Linolenic acid is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · watch · refresh)

This is still a 'Start' quality article.

Good so far:

  • First isolation, characterization, synthesis (who, when, where).
  • Chembox, with picture
  • A fair amount of reasonably readable text.
  • Manhy solid scientific references.
  • Appropriate picture
  • The references have been brought into a common format; using Template:cite and <ref> tags

ToDo:

  • Diet section is too brief
    • Do people get a significant amount of GLA from a normal (unsupplemented) diet? Is it found in meat?
  • With what efficiency is GLA absorbed?
  • How efficient is the conversion to DGLA?
  • Notwithstanding the cites given here, the claim about 'no leuokotrienes from DGLA' is disputed in the literature; see the cites at Talk:Leukotriene#Nomenclature and series.
  • The health section is a mess of unverified claims.
  • The Horribin controversy needs to be covered here. Maintaining NPOV will be dicey.
  • Although its covered elsewhere, needs to be a discussion of why this ω-6 fat is anti-inflammatory.
  • Need section on the commercial trade of GLA as a supplement, food additive.

David.Throop (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Depression

I believe that the use of EPO for depression should be mentioned. This use is highly speculative, but it is a use of the oil. 67.168.59.171 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up article

This article contains a lot of unsourced and hard to believe claims. Unless some high quality sources can be brought to back them up, I'm going to remove all of the dubious claims to talk so they are not stated as fact in the article. I thought I'd note that here in order to give a chance to fix up the article instead of yanking it all out right now and/or adding a {{disputed}} tag to the article. Thanks - Taxman Talk 21:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I added the {{disputed}} tag, because as a casual reader this would not have been clear to me had I not read the talk page, and I think it's important to note. 67.168.59.171 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You are responding to a two year old dispute. Unless there are some disputable facts in the current article that you can point to, there is no need for the {{disputed}} tag. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EPO

please explain what is meant by EPO

EPO = Evening Primrose Oil

[edit] Unsourced Statement

Moved these here as they had a 'fact' tag on for months with no response:

It is strongly advised that people should not take GLA together with anticonvulsant medication. It is also discouraged to take GLA over any sort of long term due to studies showing that it can lead to inflammation and other problems.

David.Throop 19:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch link

I restored the quackwatch link. The remover claimed it was spam. But there was no advertising on the link page, and the citations there seem to be in good order. Looking at User:I'clast recent history, he seems to be on a mission to stamp out Quackwatch links. I didn't introduce the quackwatch link here, but I wrote the Horrobin paragraph in its current form. The Quackwatch link buttresses the claim in the article that Horrobin's work was controversial. David.Throop 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:I'clast has again removed the link
I believe the link should remain. Text at the quackwatch (written by Barrett) site goes far beyond the other BMJ references in detail about the Horrobin and GLA controversy. I'clast, you mention in the note on your edit revert that you are doing this because of another editor's concern. Who is the other editor? I notice that there is currently a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal that concerns an edit war around other statements by and about Stephen Barrett. Should this disagreement be added to that arbitration?

In your comment, you indicate that the quackwatch site is per se an ad. Could you extend that idea? I don't get it.David.Throop 15:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a *lengthy* discussion (see their archives) around the QW, SB, NCAHF articles. The nature of this qroup of ~20 websites, and their presence at Wikipedia, has been explored, and continues to be explored, at length. Basically the QW articles are not peer reviewed, QW & co suffer known, self-admitted, severe bias that, on review, is thinly disguised POV with some stark examples. Most current is the dawning realization of how frequently QW & co are used as WP:RS for technically related statements, where WP seems to be a spamlink farm for QW etc and where QW has been repeatedly shown to be technically unreliable. Even a number of JD, PhD, DO, MD, MD-PhD types yield to one degree or another on this point (discussed across even more articles). The QW articles seem to find limited WP:RS as very restrained uses for opinion and sentiment about *broad* fields (GLA is not broad, naturopathy would be broad).
Although a number specific and severe technical flaws have been discussed, I will also invite your own examination of the content of the discussed articles, e.g. put on the science end of your ChemE specs for a bit. There are things that emerge[1], and there's still more, too. As for this specific article, the GLA history ends in a rather blatant personal attack on Horrobin that seems to find its home in BMJ editorials rather than being technically sourced material, inappropriate for such a subject article. I would rather not have a discussion on GLA, desaturase pathways, adjuvants, testing problems, in vivo, in vitro, species differences, industrial-academic subreption, and specific applications on an obviously unsettled subject. I have made another attempt to improve that last passage just toning it down. On Horrobin, when I say ghastly ad hom, read this.--I'clast 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF do you mean by WP:RS?? Sep 12 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.65 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiPedia : Reliable Sources – WP:RS
It's a guideline, not a policy
David.Throop (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)