Talk:Β-Carotene/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expand

Please expand. Badagnani 04:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  Currently beginning to expand.--IdiotsOpposite (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UT

I really think you should have a section, even a small one, about the uses of beta carotene to the body so health nuts can figure out what its good for.

THIS WIKI PAGE IS AWEFUL - B-CAROTENE IS A VERY IMPORTANT CHEMICAL. INFORMATION NEEDED ON: > Where it is found in nature > How it is made commercially and in why biological systems > How it is converted to Vitamin A > Light absorbing qualities (ie: properties similar to chlorophyll) > UV protective qualities

) Adam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.193.88 (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then add to the article and cite your sources. Exigence (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I'm quite surprised to see the page named as it is - shouldn't it be beta carotene, no dash, no caps? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is standard chemical nomenclature. Prefixes are italicized and lowercase, followed by a hyphen. Details can be found at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Including beta Carotene? I can see the rest, but for the official wikipedia page to have the second word capitalized seems curious and I'm simply not sure about it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. All the titles of articles for chemicals with names that start with a prefix have capitalization after the prefix. I'm sure there are literally hundreds named this way (see tert-Butanol, trans-2-Phenyl-1-cyclohexanol, or N,N-Diisopropylethylamine, to pick a few). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's messed up! Is there a section in MOS-CHEM on this? If not, perhaps there should be something explicit. Anyway, thanks for the clarification, it's quite possible it was there and I didn't read thoroughly enough. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Nomenclature#Capitalization_of_elements_and_compounds says, "Prefixes such as sec-, tert, ortho-, meta-, para- and the numerical prefixes are not considered part of the name: the first letter of main part of the name should still be capitalized where appropriate." (It doesn't list all prefixes, and doesn't specifically mention Greek letters, but all prefixes are handled the same way.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Prefixes. Note that we specifically advise against article titles with prefixes, for the very reason that the correct capitalization isn't obvious to a non-specialist. Sometimes we can't avoid a title with prefixes, and in such cases the capitalization rules are given (this article has the correct capitalization, for example). Physchim62 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The second word isn't capitalized in running text, only at the start of a sentence or in titles. To give two correct examples: "β-Carotene is a terpinoid."; "One example of a terpinoid is β-carotene." Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Side Effects

The additions to the section as of 11 January, 2010 were well researched and cited with proven sources. Please explain why the changes were reverted? Healthycare (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

By far not all, the references on sites like purebulk.com are plain spam, as you were notified on your talkpage. Please find proper sources. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra <sup>T C 10:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't want to make it wrong. But if I take information from sites like drugs.com or purebulk.com, can I put them at least to the External Links section? If a site is informative and has lots of information that can be used for Wiki's pages and I can then prove facts using reliable sources, can I put a link to a page on such sites or not? If there's any chance, I think I would use it. Thank you. Healthycare (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a significant difference between drugs.com ("Drugs.com is the most popular, comprehensive and up-to-date source of drug information online. Providing free, peer-reviewed, accurate and independent advice on more than 24,000 prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines & natural products.") and purebulk.com ("Welcome! You're at Purebulk.com. We're a different species. Here is the scoop. Purebulk.com specializes in bulk powders, amino acids, nutritional supplements, plant extracts, and wholesale nutritional raw materials. We have shipped tens of thousands of orders succesfully to over 81+ countries. From 25g to a thousand kilograms, we are able to fulfil a wide range of needs."), drugs.com would already be questionable due to a lot of advertising, purebulk.com is plainly a commercial site. So for purebulk.com certainly fails our external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese translations of the chemical is based on the following....

• http://product.cheminfo.gov.cn/K0109/K01090501.htm

--222.67.205.17 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New studies on Beta-Carotene from carrots raw, boiled and blended

- Im no scientist, but here is some useful information. BBC - The truth about raw carrots http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7998801.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.118.126 (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This links says beta-carotene is makes macular degeneration worse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17664009 from the macular degeneration page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macular_degeneration

effects

Puzzled. There's a lot about side effects, but nothing about effects. The article indicates virtually no reason why anyone should bother with the stuff at all. 72.229.152.249 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Empty section -- remove ok?

The article contains an empty section, function of beta carotene. Shall we remove it? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Article is Too Human-Oriented versus Other Effects in Nature

In the first few words, we read "enhanced if eaten with fats, as carotenes are fat soluble."

Who talked about EATING? What about plants? What is the effect of this chemical on plants, if, say, added to their irrigation water? Has that been tested yet? Starhistory22 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Many plants naturally produce beta-carotene. It's named after carrots. It makes plants orange and increases how much vitamin A it has. If you eat carrots or pumpkins, you eat beta-carotene. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Page number needed

"There is evidence that there remains a distinction between synthetic and natural beta-carotene in cancer treatment. Natural beta-carotene was shown to reverse premalignant gastric lesions while synthetic beta-carotene had no effect"

Unable to verify after looking through the book.

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but don't we tag this first? I find the points intriguing enough to merit a more thorough investigation, instead fast deleting - without checking. And not a low quality source, published via RSC. prokaryotes (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure so

This one does not have a page number "Stargrove, Mitchell (2007-12-20). , Herb, nutrient, and drug interactions : clinical implications and therapeutic strategies (1 ed.). Mosby. ISBN 978-0323029643." and I was unable to verify the content in question. It is a decent source.

And this one [1] is a primary source that looked at fibroblasts in tissue culture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you removed two references, the book states on page 178 that beta carotene found in food can protect against cancer, and is more beneficial than supplements. (2008 edition, p. 178) prokaryotes (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While you point out that the other reference about cancer protecting properties is a primary source, the current part on cancer, which reads, "Evidence does not support a role for β-carotene in treating cancer" points to landing page of an organisation. And this organisation normally does not cite any sources for their announcements. prokaryotes (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

[2] primary source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• that content was not supported by the source. i removed it and used the source elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that the stated content was not supported by the book. The book says, "Food rich in carotenoids (i.e., colorful vegetables and fruits) are generally considered more beneficial than isolated beta-carotene supplements. Furthermore, products containing only purified beta-carotene, especially of synthetic origin, may actually increase risk for or counter therapeutic measures against these conditions." This means that both natural and synthetic (purified) beta carotenes are bad. Synthetic is worse, but both are bad. According to this, people should eat their carrots instead of popping pills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

But you do realize that the initial edit contained two references, one now heavily cited. Also if you claim to cite the book, you left out the part, "Evidence suggests that mixed carotenes found in food can protect against cancer, caracts, osteoarthritis, and heart disease". However it is unclear what mixed carotene refers to. prokaryotes (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If by "heavily-cited" you mean three times, and two of them from you, I am not sure what the argument is. it is still a nine year old tertiary source. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source which shows that these findings are somehow not important after 9 years? prokaryotes (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Mixed carotenes found in food" means "eat your vegetables instead of popping a pill".

Jytdog, I'm not sure that this is a tertiary source. At least this section feels rather secondary to me (it's discussing and aggregating the results of some individual primary sources, e.g., "Preliminary research by Fisher57 involving three subjects..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I hear that. Older, and maybe tertiary maybe secondary. Not worth citing a lot when there are clearly newer and better sources. The other points you make are great too, WAID. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reorganise article

This article has a rather strange structure. The "medical uses" and "side effects" should go underneath a section that describes the main function of beta-carotene in the diet, namely providing a source of vitamin A. I also think that a small section on the influence on skin colour and sun protection may be worthwhile.

>>I have reorganised the article so that the main function of beta-carotene (pro-vitamin A activity) in the diet comes first, and the text in the "uses" section has been moved to other, larger sections as there was some overlap of information. << ~~juliakbird~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliakbird (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

reference broken for why human fat is yellow

It says human fat is yellow because of caretonoids but the source 22 leads to a bad link 70.82.105.176 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)anonymous

Uprating to C-class

Uprating to C-class. David notMD (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistake

Hello, There is a mistake at the end of the third paragraph; On the link it says "beta-carotene 15,15'-monooxygenase" when it should say "beta-carotene 15,15'-dioxygenase". I would appreciate some feedback on the way I am using the platform since I am new here. Thank you in advance. Oakicumbia (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)