Talk:Soybean
From Academic Kids
Having just read the soybean article I don't find poor grammar or much that would be considered unobjective. What does the soy article have to do with MSG? It makes no claims about MSG.
Origin of the word "Soy"
This article claims soy comes from Japanese shoyu, but which in turn comes from Chinese "Soy yu".
The Prophet Hates Soy
The entire "caveat" section is highly reminicent of this: The Dangers of Soy: Advertising and Your Health (http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2002/04/article01.shtml) Call me skeptical, but I doubt islamonline.net does the world's best research.
I agree - this seems to violate NPOV. One of the most negative articles about soybeans I've ever read.
Agreed. The poor grammar alone made me suspicious before I read the talk page. Any obvious refutations of the "caveat" in biological or agricultural literature? --150.135.183.15 03:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The claim that MSG is a potent neurotoxin is pretty laughable. Other than that I'm not sure but I will try to check it out. PubMed ought to give us some answers. The main argument that soy milk is not appropriate for infants I have definitely heard before, but I actually dunno if it's right or not. The stuff about cancer rates in Asia is also at least partly correct... --Chinasaur 07:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The islamonline site has this (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044475.htm) as one of its references. But this article makes it pretty clear that soy is not the problem with this infant formula. Hmmm, I'm not sure that discrediting islamonline will clear up the caveats section of this article. Unless we're sure that's where these caveats came from? --Chinasaur 07:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Here's a recent study that appears to debunk the claims in the caveats section. I will comment out the caveats section now. But we should add a sectio to the article addressing the history of sensationalism around infant soy formulae. PMID 15113975
- Another study with no negative effects of soy: PMID 15294661. But here is a review claiming more studies are needed: PMID 15189112
- This article looks like it has been cleaned up, so I'm going to remove the POV tag. --CVaneg 21:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Taxonomy
I thought we decided to keep the taxonomy simple in the table with only unsing sub and super taxons to organize children lists? --maveric149, Friday, July 19, 2002
- There are *so* many genera in Fabaceae that I'm putting them on subpages, and therefore anyone who follows the Fabaceae link has to know the subfamily to find it. Of course all beans are Faboideae except the coffee bean, the castor bean, and the human bean, but for the other two I'm sure there's a tree not many people know whether is a Caesalpinioidea or a Mimosoidea. -PierreAbbat
Ah, I see there is logic to your madness. :) Although I don't think we should bother writing articles on sub and super taxa when there are so many non-sub/super taxon articles to write. Having these might seem confusing for visitors too (however sub and super taxa are a great way to organize lists -- as you have done). Even without the Faboideae a visitor will still find everything needed in Fabaceae. This will keep the table clean, predictable and easy to use. --maveric149
