Talk:Geophagia

message: ::: Copied from Talk:Geophagy.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: It seems to me that as we now have merged pages, we need to decide whether to consistently use the term 'geophagy' or 'geophagia' throughout.  Does anyone think that they are not interchangable?  Can I replace all of the one for the other? JMWt (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Standardizing to geophagia would be good.  I just left a note on your talk page about primary sources and WP:MEDRS.  Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: This edit removed some of my additions (plus some of other editors) on the basis that they are primary sources as per WP:MEDRS.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geophagia&curid=1238868&diff=648805718&oldid=648805010
I dispute that "Water Research Commission project K5/2379: Investigating the practice of open defecation post sanitation provision
and the practice and implications of ingesting soil which may be contaminated: literature review" is a primary source.  Clearly it is a secondary source, but unfortunately it is not freely available online for me to link to.
The two other studies I referred to are primary sources (in the sense given in WP:MEDRS) but are descriptive and are not 'medical sources' in the sense suggested by the content guideline.  The soil and faeces were analysed from those particular situations and the results were found.  This is not to imply anything about other situations.
Given that there are no systematic review articles, I cannot see how else examples of situations could be included.  And the article is poorer without some evidence about the health effects of geophagia from peer reviewed journals.  JMWt (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: More significant than not being freely available is that the Water Commission report is not yet published (see WP:V). Why do you say there are no review articles?  There are many; click on the link in the box at the top of the page, and substitute geophagia with geophagy.  I can't see any reason to report very old primary studies when there are recent secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks for the correction and explaining it, I will find better sources. JMWt (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of primary sources

message: :: Moved to talk for better sourcing; we shouldn't be making health claims based on a 1975 article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Absorbs dangerous toxins" 

message: ::: Enotes.com homework notes is not even close to a reliable source-- removed from article for sourcing. We can't be making claims about health benefits from non-reliable sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed for sourcing 

message: :I have moved this section, which was in the Benefits section for discussion.  I kept a phrase about chimps (without the claim about human health) and moved it to the Primates section. I am assuming for now that this source is acceptable for evidence about primate behaviour if not about human health. JMWt (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Antidiarrheal properties

message: The first phrase in this section is a verbatim quote, so I have changed it to show this.  I'm not totally sure it is strong enough to stay, but better it is shown to be a quote if it is one. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You know the field-- if you feel it is not strong enough to be in the article, I defer to your judgment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropological and historical evidence

message: * WP:OVERLINK, terms should be linked on first occurrence, and common terms need not be linked.
* WP:FN-- please note that citations go after punctuation (except dashes), with no spaces.
* Please observe the following two (similar) citations in the article (now corrected):
** 
** Brightsmith, D.J., Taylor, J, and Phillips, T.D. (2008) "The roles of soil characteristics and toxin adsorption in avian geophagy." Biotropica 40, no. 6 (2008): 766-774. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00429.x Accessed 2015-2-26
*** Journal articles do not need an accessdate-- they are not like websites, that change with time.
*** Please note the correct means of citing volume, issue and page numbers.
*** Please see WP:MOSNUM; page ranges use WP:ENDASHes (not hyphens), and the final numbers are truncated.
*** As a general note, please note that a URL is provided only when free full text is available-- otherwise, the DOI and PMID link to the abstract.
*** When the same source is used more than once, it should be cited as a named ref.  See WP:REFNAME.  
* Please observe this citation:
** Williams, Lynda B., and Shelley E. Haydel (2010). "Evaluation of the medicinal use of clay minerals as antibacterial agents." International geology review 52, no. 7-8 (2010): 745-770. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00206811003679737 Accessed 2015-02-26 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904249/ 
**: which renders as:
*** Williams, Lynda B., and Shelley E. Haydel (2010). "Evaluation of the medicinal use of clay minerals as antibacterial agents." International geology review 52, no. 7-8 (2010): 745-770. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00206811003679737 Accessed 2015-02-26 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904249/ 
*: compared to the corrected 
** 
**: which renders as:
*** 
* When a PubMed identifier (PMID) is available, it should be used.
* When a PMC is available, it can be linked via the PMC parameter (and in that case, a URL is not needed).
* See correct formatting of journal, volume, issue, and page number range.
* Regarding Abrahams in Selenius:
** DOIs link to abstracts: 
** See WP:REFNAME-- naming a citation allows for it to be reused.
** This is one way to re-use a book with multiple page nos: 
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some editing notes 

message: SandyGeorgia, thanks for your patience with my poor formatting.  I have taken note and will do better.
One small thing: under standard Binomial nomenclature, the first word in a scientific species name always has a capital letter, so trichilia rubescens (sic) is wrong - I think you changed it in one of your edits.  Strictly speaking it should also be in italics, but I am not sure of the correct form for use on wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: AH!  I was not aware it always needed uppercase (the overuse of uppercase is a big problem on Wikipedia).  Yes, it should be in italics (that is done by adding two separate straight quote marks around the text, like this:  text between two straight quotes is italicized renders this: text between two straight quotes is italicized.  But why did you remove the link?  See WP:RED; red links like Trichilia rubescens encourage other editors to write missing articles.  It is a pleasure to teach and mentor new editors when they pay attention !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, ok my fault.  In my previous life editing wikis outside of wikipedia, red links were considered a sign of poor editing.  A pet hate :) JMWt (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Binomial nomenclature

message: , I'm unclear why you deleted this sourced text: the citations are not consistent or necessarily written correctly, but it is sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some of the paragraphs which were removed did not have citations, but I think it was a little bit extreme to remove them altogether without any discussion.  I confess I did look at them when working on this page before but did not investigate whether there was any referenced support for the assertions - I think they should be investigated rather than just removed.  The quote below was not added by me, but I found the source and found that it was a verbatim quote (which was not clear), hence the odd mark-up which I added to highlight this.  I am not totally convinced it adds to the page, but I'd rather have a discussion about it rather than just removing. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since I don't have access to the sources, I'm indifferent to the removal, and will leave it to you ... just wanted Rex to let us know if there was a reason that wasn't obvious.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced text deleted 

message: Anyone know how to pronounce the title of this page? I assumed it was geo-fagia, but have never actually heard anyone speaking the word.JMWt (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On Google Translate you can listen to the pronounciation, I assume it is correct, see here (click on the loudspeaker symbol). EvM-Susana (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if that is correct, that's why I'm asking. JMWt (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Geophagia. 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/20120304025224/http://www.quotidienlejour.com/double-page-/reportage/504-balengou-autour-des-mines to http://www.quotidienlejour.com/double-page-/reportage/504-balengou-autour-des-mines
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "contain high levels of calcium, copper, magnesium, iron and zinc that are critical for pregnant women and peasants" - a rather peculiar pairing of 'pregnant women and peasants', one (well thinking of it, actually both) of which, i belive, could be a subcategory of the other. (and none of which are homogenuous groups in relation to geophagia.) i suppose, the phenomenon being vittnessed among a certain population that is shorthanded here by reflection to their occupation as 'peasants' but, i am sure the conclusion that peasants being a distinct geophagous group does not stand. perhaps it'd be more correct to say that there is a publication that deals with vittnessed geophagia among a certain population of peasants of a given time and spatial denomination.80.99.38.199 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'impact on health' section 

message: The Peter Abrahams citation is full of grammatical errors. How come? Equinox ◑ 18:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye . Quite frankly, I do not think it is the most reputable source at all (at least in a historical perspective); see my section below entitled: Talk:Geophagia#Nearly universal? Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake/wrong citation? 

message: "Geophagia is nearly universal around the world in tribal and traditional rural societies (although apparently it has not been documented in Japan or Korea)."
--Is the exemption limited to just Japan and Korea, which gives way to it apparently being "nearly universal"? If so, I do not know how reliable author Peter Abrahams (2013) is. I have a source (1907) that definitively mentions Japanese use in detail in Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: Volume I (Calcutta, India) (Subsection): Earth-Eating and the Earth-Eating Habit in India. By David Hooper and Harold H. Mann (6 December 1905) Pg. 249. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly universal? 

message: "Geophagia" the act of eating earth has been used since the beginning of time (or as far back as records can show), before its association with the "medical disorder" PICA. I believe that this article as it stands, leans far too heavy towards the modern perspective, in distain, rather than accruing all the facts and history behind "eating earth". I have found a lot more on the subject without these biases. If "geophagia" is going to cover earth-eating, it needs to touch-down on the possible benefits for the non-scientific term it is also covering, which is vaguely being mentioned in this article, albeit a couple of sentences. For example, there is an article on medicinal clay, which is one type of earth substance that briefly mentions the positive uses for internal use but with much more history behind it, though that is neither a GA-article either. Possible additions to this article (from me) is on the horizon. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is lacking possibly due to a misguided approach 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jessica Zauri (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: GEOG 479 Primate Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation