Talk:Rutin

message: I believe the numbering of the hydroxyl groups on the chromene are wrong (should be 5,7-dixydroxy). Also the numbering of the ketone group is wrong (should be "-4-one"). Do people agree? --Kupirijo 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic name 

message: Has anybody got any figures like the Quercetin article of actual amounts in for plants (mg/kg)? 78.151.207.130 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amounts in food plants 

message: Can the IUPAC name be split? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox too long 

message: Can somebody add the ref please as I am unsure how to do it?
http://www.uctm.edu/bg/j2009-2/15_Maria_Atanasova_201-203.pdf
80.42.155.255 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref re aronia berries 

message: Solubility in Water is totally wrong - probably just the first search engine hit was taken (which is not a reliable source...)
Krewson, C. F. and Naghski, J. (1952), Some physical properties of rutin. J. Pharm. Sci., 41: 582–587. doi: 10.1002/jps.3030411106
It's 0,013g/100cc - which is more like it - so it's probably an error in decimal places.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.59.119 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article stated 12.5 g/100 mL, but the Merck Index says 1 g/8 L, which is 12.5 mg/100 mL.  So you're right, it looks like a typo where "g" should have been "mg".  This gives a value close to the one you report.  I have added both values to the article.  Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong parameters 

message: "hydroxyethyl acetylations" does not seem to make sense.
69.72.92.183 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  hydroxyethylrutosides 

message: please review over the guidelines on this, but I think my edits are reasonable removal of content that either making overly broad claims. Also, animal studies are typically frowned upon which is a large portion of the content I have removed. Medical relating articles (or articles making medical related claims) have much higher rigor of sources then regular wikipedia articles. 
Edit revision here, CC: User:Jytdog.  
Shaded0 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: responding to the ping - yes, it is not hard to find reviews - I added the review-finder header at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your note. Please keep content in the section about "role as ligand" about its role as a ligand. I will post at WT:MED to keep more eyes on this page. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Fine. Please stop wasting our time edit warring crappy content about health into WP based on primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't mean you or Zefr get a free pass for removing legitimate content. You don't. I'll take you to WP:AN the next time I see you do it again. --Acyclic (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  note the strict guidelines on sources for WP:MEDRS again. Many of the claims also that you have made on Zinc L-carnosine are similarly overly-broad and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Looping User:Doc_James to see if he has time to give a more in-depth explanation on this or look at this. Shaded0 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failing MEDRS 

message: Zefr, please consider keeping the information about CYPs. The information is from articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, and there is a scientific consensus of at least two different groups of authors. Maybe we leave this information, providing that we have emphasized that these studies are in vitro? This in vitro information is better than nothing. What do you think? In the link to the “Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology”. It gives one of the following reasons: “Only egregiously bad papers are actually retracted; there are loads and loads of papers that draw conclusions that turned out not to be true, but that remain in the literature. People who are not experts in the field have no way of knowing which research papers have been left in the dust by the scientific community. These papers are not retracted, nor are they labelled in any way. They just sit there, ignored.” However, the articles I have given as a source are most recent, and the consensus is emerging in the other sources that Rutin is somehow involved in P450 (CYPs) enzyme metabolism. May I ask a third opinion? - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Such content is highly speculative, likely non-replicable, and irrelevant to the in vivo or human condition. It is unencyclopedic to mention such content; see here. Wikipedia is not a thesis or journal article where speculation may be acceptable to provide background, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. Zefr (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation. I saw that "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. [...] Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Academic language in the text should be explained in lay terms."
Since it is hard to explain the term in vitro in lay terms and that it may be unreliable, better to not publish it until we have in vivo studies published. Those who need to find whether rutin affects CYPs and CYPs are involved in rutin metabolism, can find the information at pubmed. - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Nothing is better than unreliable. Have we no WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you! See my comment above (that has the same time as this one) - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metabolism section