Talk:Oleuropein

new review article on Oleuropein available
http://dx.doi.org/10.3797/scipharm.0912-18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.150.94 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sci. Pharm. 2010; 78: 133–154 "Oleuropein in Olive and its Pharmacological Effects" Syed Haris OMAR : Abstract: "Olive from Olea europaea is native to the Mediterranean region and, both the oil and the fruit are some of the main components of the Mediterranean diet. The main active constituents of olive oil include oleic acid, phenolic constituents, and squalene. The  main  phenolic compounds,  hydroxytyrosol and  oleuropein,  give  extra-virgin  olive  oil  its  bitter,  pungent  taste.  The  present  review  focuses  on recent  works  that  have  analyzed  the  relationship  between  the  major  phenolic  compound  oleuropein  and  its  pharmacological  activities  including  antioxidant,  anti-inflammatory,  anti-atherogenic,  anti-cancer  activities,  antimicrobial  activity, antiviral activity, hypolipidemic and hypoglycemic effect.  " full text free.
 * Looks like a useful source, not fully used in the current article. - Rod57 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That article isn't new (2010) and discusses only in vitro results with speculation about what it may do in vivo in humans. In my opinion, the article is fine as it is. --Zefr (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, an old article in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal with an impact factor of zero. The red light is flashing. May be usable for mundane claims but is unreliable for anything health related. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sad to see how much verifiable content has been deleted
Looking at the history, The main justification seems to be that items were only supported by primary sources. It would have been more constructive perhaps to flag the content as relying on primary sources (to see if anyone can find good secondary sources)? And perhaps to highlight or tone down any overenthusiastic claims ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was basically a supplement advert based on bogus health claims. Not sure why nuking that is a cause for sadness; quite the opposite! Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede and chemistry subsection
From a discussion with User talk:Carystus:

Hello, Carystus, concerning this edit and this subsequent edit. 1) in your edit, I felt there was too much chemical detail for the lede per MOS:LEAD and 2) the 'closely related' compounds are unsourced (as well as not being appropriate for the lede). It would be useful if you wrote a Chemistry subsection following the lede. --Zefr (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Zefr. About the closely related compounds, the were there in the lede before my edit, I only introduced the term seco-iridoid. You can have a point in that the chemical relations could have it's own section, but the raison d'être for my edit was to improve on the existing, as I found it to be negligent that there was no mention of it being a seco-iridoid, and I also find it wrong to state, as the article does now, that it is a tyrosol derivative, which it is not. These substances are in general not tyrosol derivatives, but phenethyl alcohol derivatives. I also felt it could be said in a more coherent way, which I offered. The article was very short before my edit, and not much longer after; if I had made a separate section for chemistry, there would be no lede left, and I had no intention to make a major contribution to the article. In general, a brief chemical overview is not misplaced in the lede of a chemical substance; it is rather a problem that the lede is so short, so it appears to focus on chemistry only. We have the process backwards, because the lede should be the head of a body, an introduction to the article proper, but the latter has not been written. My suggestion is, the article is reverted back to my edit with addition of your contribution, the leaching using lye, and a call for an expansion of the article. I will take it upon me to find a source for the related compounds. Carystus (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As the article is a WP:STUB and we should adhere to MOS:LEAD, I feel we can lay the groundwork for future expansion of the article by acknowledging the chemistry in the lede but by developing a separate chemistry subsection. I placed an 'under construction' banner and removed discussion of chemistry in the lede while you find sources and edit a chemistry section, and we discuss other ways to improve the article. --Zefr (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

page protected
Now we can discuss changes rather than insulting JytdogDlohcierekim (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"oleuropein must be completely removed" - it seems, from the above-cited articles, that the oleuropein is merely MOSTLY removed, and that significant quantities remain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)