Talk:Pulse (legume)

message: :In fact pulses contain more protein than eggs, fish or flesh foods.
Are we talking about raw pulses or cooked?  Raw pulses likely contain more protein than eggs, fish, or meat.  But most people don't eat them raw, so this kind of statement seems misleading.  In any case, some supporting information is needed, ideally a chart comparing the protein content of pulses to other protein sources. --Dforest 06:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I was about to edit that very phrase even before I read this comment.  I've changed it back to "poor man's meat" as it was originally entered (and to which I can find many references). Mditto 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protein in pulses 

message: From the first paragraph of the article "and crops which are used exclusively for sowing (clovers, alfalfa)." What exactly does this mean? I think it might mean that no one eats the clover seed itself, even though the whole plant is used as a fodder. ike9898 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you explain this sentence? 

message: If you are coming to the page to figure out what Pulses are, the intro is probably too technical.  How about including something like, "Including a variety of beans and peas." Or "such as lima beans, chickpeas, and lentils."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.242.155 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. If someone more knowledgeable would like to give a less technical introduction that would be good. It might also be worthwhile distinguishing between the common use of the word and the technical use. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear introduction 

message: I'm struggling to understand what is the difference, if any, between pulse and legume. And if there's no difference, why are there two articles? Thanks for any help. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legume and pulse: any difference? 

message: i need email address of baytur.s.a(switzerland)pulses department.
i need yr help
yr prompt reply is highly appreciated
regards
faisal yasin kapaya  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.100.32 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  email 

message: neeed email address of baytur pulses switzerland
faisal yasin kapaya
kkapaya@cyber.net.pk
faisalyt@hotmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.100.32 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  email address of baytur 

message: Please provide evidence for your claim that these (one or both?) [][] references are is "Junk".  You seem to be edit warring.  Note that I've reduce the intro and placed missed info into Health.  PS We already discussed the second reference, which I agreed was questionable (~"anyone can publish" there, so left removed elsewhere), but left in for it's level of detail with supporting references.32cllou (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the academia.org source is bad. But also we don't use primary sources for biomedical information (except in exceptional circumstances) - please see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Academia.edu reference.  Those three new references are reveiws.  The single primary is Ok to use as "basic research" as stated.32cllou (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Re primary, note that this is a food topic, not a medical one.32cllou (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources" (my bold) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take that single primary out.  Still leaves three good reviews that support the text.  Do I have to say "specific to peas..."32cllou (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I care much one way or the other, but the journal Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is considered a "fringe journal" according to whom exactly? Care to provide a source (or preferably multiple sources) demonstrating that this is the prevalent view of this particular journal?  TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All altmed journals potentially fall afoul of WP:FRIND for altmed claims; there may be okay uses of them but care needs to be taken - especially if extraordinary biomedical claims are being made. For many years the publisher (Hindawi) featured on Beall's list of predatory publishers - a definite red flag. Coincidentally, this journal is being discussed at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, falls afoul of WP:FRIND according to whom? You? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You misquote. In cases where's it not clear what the fringeiness of a source is, it is wise to check at, say, WP:FT/N or WT:MEDRS. Sometimes the determination is quite involved: see here for example. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk Journal 

message: FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  In the meantime, I've found many more review references: []32cllou (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm impressed with how quickly you read. Between "finding" your sources, reading them, digesting them and overciting them here a mere matter of minutes! Unfortunately these sources (some of them rather old) do no support the orphaned claims left behind, that you were previously referencing to a primary source. The overcited inaccurate text is making a bit of mess of our article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are 2002, which is not "old".  They are British Journal of Nutrition reviews.  All the text is now supported.  Please be specific re orphaned claims.  Other than that seems like you promote your POV.32cllou (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: We prefer things 5 years old, or younger, if possible. It will take some time to go through these sources (which I am now doing, give me a few hours). But on a quick first pass I could not (e.g.) find anything which supported the assertion that eating pulses "may be applicable to lowering the risk of chronic diseases such as ... stroke". Do you mean they might reduce the risk of a stroke happening, of or a stroke resulting in chronic consequences? What source supports either of these? In general a huge string of citations like this is a huge red flag - there is no integrity between the words in Wikipedia and the sources being cited. Also, as a separate issue, there are other sourcing problems in this section. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's for neutrality. See WT:MED#Asserting "facts". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You text is certainly not neutral!  "Some evidence"  Should I just quote directly from the conclusion of that review?32cllou (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's conclusion has: "These findings, however, are limited by several design issues and the poor quality of the available trials". Wikipedia no longer reflects that, and so has moved away from being neutral. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticeboard discussion 

message: What about peanuts? Why aren't they considered a pulse?Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peanuts? 

message: User:Zefr just removed:
At the same time, User:Northamerica1000 added the following to Grain:
Sourced to a cookbook, which I marked with  soon afterwards.
Now, what is exactly the state of the art of research concerning "incomplete proteins" and "shortage of amino-acids" in legumes? The above stuff is certainly sourceable, for example . However, my brief research shows support from papers from 1953, 1979, nutrient websites , and so on. If it's just a myth, it should be debunked, with newer sources. If it still holds true, it should be sourced. It is not OK to have it just removed, with two articles in different states.No such user (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete proteins