Talk:Agaricus subrufescens

message: This article contains contradictory information, citing on the one hand A. blazei as a synonym then in the body of the article explaining it is not as synonym. It seems like A. blazei needs to be made into a separate entry and the confusion between the species clarified under both of them.Eric Yarnell (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature

message: The tone seems perfectly fine so I am romoving that tag unless someone has a problem with it.
I will also put this up for a final proofread so that we can remove it from the copyedit backlog.
Puddytang 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone--Copy edit 

message: Unfortunately, for article grading, there's no grade lower than "Stub". If I had to assign a letter grade, I'd give the article in its present state a D. It contains practically no descriptive or taxonomic information on the mushroom itself. Its almost entirely focused on the medicinal aspects, which it treats with uncritical praise. The citation style is totally wrong and also inconsistent. Major cleanup and maybe even a total rewrite is called for. Peter G Werner 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article grading – I only wish I could rate it lower! 

message: I confirmed the Didukh and Wasser reference;  the problem was probably that poor formatting in the citation made the names look like a single individual.  I don't think the full text is available in most online databases.  Here is the link to abstract:  http://www.edata-center.com/journals/708ae68d64b17c52,72e968661ff5d957,0d3487e1197d1f4e.html
Sci girl 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference confirmed 

message: I made the citations more consistent; they're now all in the references section.  I have to check the format for the actual citations but they are all in the same place instead of 4 different kinds with duplications.  Would footnotes be better than Harvard referencing?  Sci girl 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best citation method?

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I think the ref name tags are now sorted out. That was ugly due to errors in closing tag pairs and substituting double quotes with twin single quotes. From the history, it looks like some recent content edits may also have conflicted. Those can be sorted out one at a time.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref fixes 

message: While the original was after William Alphonso Murrill, the bulk of the references seem to spell it A. blazei Murill. There should be some discussion of the change (where and when did it start) and the article text should be consistent. LeadSongDog come howl 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too when I did some edits a while ago. The problem is some of the sources just spelled it wrong and the incorrect spelling has been transmitted down and spread in various publications. For the purposes of this article, the references should be cited exactly the way they were published (ie. correctly or incorrectly), but it might be useful to put a note parenthetically in the text somewhere about this. Sasata (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the cited titles should not be "corrected". In text however the use of [sic] markup is appropriate for direct quotations and other uses should be corrected.LeadSongDog come howl 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling - Murrill vice Murill 

message: At some point, would someone be so kind as to help me center that Interleukin-12 in vivo data.  -Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlas (talk • contribs) 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It took a bit of fiddling, but it's there now. I've also removed a blank column from the end of the table... Shimgray | talk | 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Table Centering

message: In Taxonomy section it is mentioned "Agaricus subrufescens was first described by the American botanist Charles Horton Peck in 1893"
Below the Binomial name (right side), it is stated "Agaricus subrufescens Peck (1894)"
Please solve this, I don't have access to the original article to do it myself.
Thanks,
Cristian  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.40.173 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for the note. Sasata (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information in Taxonomy section 

message: "Note that Agaricus blazei Murrill is a perfectly valid name, but for a completely different mushroom. Agaricus silvaticus Schaeff. is also a perfectly valid name for a common, north temperate, woodland mushroom. Neither is a synonym of Agaricus subrufescens."
If this is true, then there are two mushrooms(Agaricus blazei Murrill and Agaricus subrufescens.) There should be two Wikipedia articles or at least the whole page should reflect the black and white comparison of the two different mushrooms. If it is not true and there is only one mushroom,then the above quote should be removed. 
I know the marketing of the mushrooms is important to everyone, but if there are two mushrooms could not each mushroom be marketed for different positive attributes? How is research going to get anywhere with conflicting taxonomies?
scientist 1: "Mushroom A found to cure cancer, mushroom B found to taste really good." 
scientist 2: "Scientist 1 is a lair. I tested mushroom A and I found it to taste really good but not to cure cancer, mushroom b did not taste good and cured cancer." 
scientist 3: "Both scientist,1 and 2 are lairs. In the first experiment, I tested mushroom A to see if it cured cancer, it did not. In the second experiment, I reordered mushroom A to see if tasted good, it did not.In the 3rd experiment, I ordered mushroom B. I tested to see if it cured cancer, it did not. In the 4th experiment,I ordered mushroom B to see if it tasted good, it did not."
The supply house sends out either mushroom a or b as mushroom a or b, all scientists results could be telling the truth.
The reality in this explanation, two mushrooms - one cures cancer, one taste really good and caused cancer 100% of the time 10 years later.  
See how important clear research can be to defend against a shaky unfounded negative rumor? Marketing is not lying, but it can be used to spread a lie.
Many of the References,at least References: 3,4,11,12,14,19,20,22,23,24,27,28,29,31,32,34,36,38,40,41,42,43,44, and 46;
have Agaricus Blazei Murill in the name of the reference.
where reference 2 and 6 have Agaricus subrufescens in the name of the reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderSloka (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Is Agaricus blazei Murrill a completely different mushroom than Agaricus subrufescens?" 

message: I've removed the External links section as neither of the sites pointed to contain material that could not be integrated into this article - see WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE, and WP:ELNO#1. Please consider carefully our policy on the purpose of external links. If external sites are reliable sources, then they may be used to support statements in the text (within the constraints of WP:MEDRS). Please be aware that attempting to use external links as an end-run around our reliable source policies is not acceptable. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: "beneficial effect" on blood sugar.  This means if it is to low it raises it and if to high it lower it?  And how about cellular health does that mean it causes cancer?  If the cellular health is high cancer results.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one is "inhibiting angiogenesis" does this mean that it delays would healing?  Sometimes we wish to inhibit angiogenesis sometimes we wish to increase it.  Depends on the situation.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No improved cellular health ( ie cells that do not die = cancer ).  Cellular health is one of a loaded word.  It is sufficiently vague that the FDA will not say you are making health claims yet implies that something real is taking place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another POV word