Talk:Natural product/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Secondary metabolite and natural product are merely synonyms that are used interchangeably. It might also be a good idea to clean up this article and to remove most of the lead compounds. Cacycle 14:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Secondary metabolite" and "natural product" are hardly interchangeable, and no one who wishes to speak precisely uses them so. "Natural product" barely has any specific meaning at all (since absolutely anything, in one sense or another, can be regarded as a "natural product") while "secondary metabolite" is used in a fairly precise manner -- as, for instance, in the definition in the main article. The very fact that the term "secondary" is employed is enough to suggest a specific meaning (i.e., apart from "primary"), and "metabolite" is far more specific than "product". The term "secondary metabolite" has widespread, well-understood import within the scientific community, particularly within biology and its subset, ecology, and wary individuals should not allow its use, or their understanding of the term, to be diluted by those in the quack medicine or "natural products" industry. -- djx, May 2007

Actually, the term "natural product" in the context of chemistry and biology has this specific meaning and it is usually interchangeable with secondary metabolite. Cacycle 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a merge. Plenty of "natural products" are not secondary metabolites, e.g. peptides, hemes, lipids, sugars, hormones. The former term is sometimes erroneously used in biology as a synonym for the latter, but its proper place is in chemistry to distinguish man-made from organism-derived compounds. Keep this chemistry article separate from the other biology article. To avoid repetition, let's move everything about secondary metabolites to the biology article, keeping everything that's not a secondary metabolite here. I notice nobody's written much about these compounds in this article yet.Bendž|Ť 20:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose a merge because not all natural products are secondary metabolites. However I see no reason to move all the secondary metabolites out because many secondary metabolites ARE natural products.KSVaughan2 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the two articles have very different approaches anyway, so it shouldn't be neceassary. Bendž|Ť 08:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been working in this field and the term "natural products" in the context of chemistry and biology is almost always used synonymously with "secondary metabolite". Please note that this is a technical term that is not congruent with what a normal person would call "natural products". Just check Google for "natural.product.chemistry" and see what pops up - the vast majority is NOT about primary metabolites like "peptides, hemes, lipids, sugars, hormones".

But since this article is about drug discovery from secondary metabolites and not about natural products in general, it might be a good idea to rename it into something like Natural product research or Natural product drug discovery and to edit it accordingly. Cacycle 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this term is used in fields different from the one you have been working in. Not all researchers will understand or care about the definition of "natural products" or how it applies to "secondary metabolites". A merge is entirely unnecessary.Bosco911 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's the solution. Looking at the contents of the Natural Products Research journal, there are certainly some primary products there. We can avoid overlap by including as little specific information about the products/metabolites themselves, but just describing the research, perhaps mainly ecological under secondary metabolites and mainly medicinal under natural products, with links to the same pages dedicated to individual compounds. Bendž|Ť 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In organic synthesis, natural product means something like "interesting molecule discovered in a plant/bug/fish and that we want to try to synthesize". I believe these are generally secondary metabolites, but maybe there are some exceptions. --Itub 11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

-I like this statement: it's about as concise as it gets for synthetic organic chemists. Of course, not everyone is a synthetic organic chemist. If you're going to have an entry entitled "natural products", then you should state right at the outset that your article is designed to explain what this term typically means in a specific context, and define that context. The phrase "secondary metabolite" also deserves some discussion, but again you have to define your context. It boils down to writing a better Wikipedia entry than the one that exists, bearing in mind that one of the purposes of any encyclopedia should be to educate the non-specialist, as well as informing the more expert, and see how it flies...but, please, let's have no arrogant statements from people who "work in the field". Xprofj (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that secondary meatabolites are/were usually so-called because of a lack of an obvious requirement for the producing organisms survival. This makes the term 'secondary' rather subjective, particularly when considering differing environmental conditions where the metabolite in question might well be essential for survival. MDG38 11:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is a little inappropriate because "natural product" could mean many things other than therapeutic chemicals. Part of this article could be merged with Drug discovery, since compounds from plants and such, especially ones used in traditional medicine systems, are a major source of mainstream medications.

"Natural" is a near-meaningless term, "product" could mean many other things, so this article has little justification for existence under this name.

It's mostly a question of what to do with the contents of an article that is so poorly related to its title.

I don't see any problem with the article title. This article is about the term natural product as used in chemistry. If there are other encyclopedic topics that deserve the title

disambiguation page and rename this to natural product (chemistry) if necessary (depending on which of the topics, if any, is agreed to be the "primary topic"). --Itub (talk

) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; 'natural product' is common parlance in chemistry to refer to the kinds of compounds discussed on this page. Ben Thuronyi (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think thing the title should be changed to "Natural Products Drug Discovery" or "Natural Products Research". Defining what a "natural product" is can be tricky since people are quite liberal with what it includes. Sion55 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The parsing of the name beggars belief: Should the name of organic chemistry be changed, because the common (lexicographic) understanding of the word organic has nothing to do with an enterprise significantly devoted to transformations of substances derived from petroleum products? An emphatic No! to this and the above. We are writing about what is, and not what we wish to be. Names of things, endeavours, etc. were determined by others in history. They are what they are, and it is our job to represent them, and make the name as memorable as we can in doing so (not to change them, as 19th century armchair philosopher might, to what we perceive they should be).[ref 1,2] As for the immediately preceding suggestion for NP DD or NP R, see below, section with same date, for how this will fail to encompass the eventual scope of the article. Cheers. LeProf.

• 1. See No. 16, "Representation in Chemistry", http://www.roaldhoffmann.com/other
• 2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.199100013/abstract

I'm sorry if im not putting this in the right place, im new...anyhow,seeing as the animal section basicly describes venom extracted from animals, shouldn't it just be merged with the venom section? either as "venom" or "animals and venom".... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.154.208 (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the list of natural product drugs is misleading. Many (perhaps even most) of those listed are not natural products. And important natural product drugs are missing. For example, the natural drug morphine is not listed, but the synthetic analog methylnaltrexone is. Some drugs are truly natural, some are semi-synthetic (produced synthetically from a natural chemical compound), and some are merely "inspired" by natural compounds. I think the list should focus more narrowly only on drugs that are truly natural products - otherwise this list will either be too long, or incomplete (as it is now). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur, this section does need careful examination, and further clarification through redactions and edits to the text. If time permits. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Should this article be successfully removed or merged, I would—upon coming to Wikipedia from the outside, as a practicing scientific professional, and a content expert—immediately seek to have a new "natural products" article stubbed in. Bottom line, natural products chemistry is a distinct area of chemical research, critically important in the history of chemistry, the sourcing of ideas and substances in drug discovery, the understanding of traditional medicines and ethnopharmacology, the evolution of technology associated with chemical separations, the development of modern methods in solution structure determination by NMR, the teasing out of pharmacologically useful areas of physicochemical property space, and in the development of synthetic organic methodology (where the Mount Everest's of natural products total synthesis provide the context for new reaction discovery, see David A. Evans article). (Etc.) These are distinct foci from discussions that usually surround secondary metabolites and their context in metabolism, semiochemistry / chemical ecology, etc. Improve each article and subject area, yes. But keep them distinct, for operationally, and in the details and many nuances, they simply are. Apples and oranges folks, if you do this for a living. If you do not believe, someone email KC Nicolaou and suggest to him that the article be removed. Cheers. LeProf.

This scope of this article is more than the organic chemistry of natural products. Hence it is appropriate that the lead focus on the natural products themselves, why nature produces them, and their most common application (i.e., directly or as starting points for pharmaceuticals). The isolation, characterization, and total synthesis of natural products should be briefly mentioned in the lead and covered in more detail later in the article. There are two ways to improve an article. Blow it up and start over if it is hopeless, or through incremental improvements. While the current article is deficient, I don't think it is hopeless. Hence I think incremental improvements is a more appropriate and efficient way to improve this article. Finally I think we all need to display just a little bit of humility, just like KC "I so richly deserve a Nobel" Nicolaou ;-) Boghog (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your Wikipedia behaviour continues reprehensible, in my opinion. Besides displaying "following", the first signs of stalking, see (

K.C. Nicolaou. His trainee list is a veritable cornucopia of fine chemistry talent, including individuals as qualified as you or I in editing here, http://www.scripps.edu/nicolaou/pastmembers.html. How many chemistry faculty members can you count there? You should be ashamed. Insult me, go ahead. Leave off with those who clearly deserve your respect; WP:AGF, Wikipedia:RESPECT, as you are very quick to say to anyone else. Bottom line, lose the chemistry and natural products chip you have on your shoulder, and keep to yourself, please, utterances which are (a) not specifically about content, and (b) expressions denigrating other persons, esp. those not present. Humility indeed. Physician, heal thyself. Leprof 7272 (talk

) 04:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Newman DJ, Cragg GM Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. Journal of Natural Products 70, 461-477 (2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

...start with offering questions and discussion here. Note, I tried to at least leave the ideas that were present earlier, if not the actual prose. The greatest issue with the earlier lead was that it was incomplete. Please question/comment here. Cheers. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The link to the following reference, which is cited repeatedly (37 times!), is broken:

^G Brahmachari et Al., Natural Products in Drug Discovery: Impacts and Opportunities—An Assessment., 2010 http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/8033/8033_chap01.pdf

Real problem, folks, relying so much on (a) a weak source, (b) an etextbook. PLEASE RESOLVE. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content or spam links.I am One of Many (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. Boghog (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with 50.179.92.36 edits is that they removed references without adding new ones. Ultimately the lead of well written article does not need to contain citations because the lead serves as the summary of the entire article and the body of the article will contain the appropriate references. In fact, the body of the article containing the appropriate citations should ideally be written first, and then the lead. This is rarely done however. So for now, the lead should contain citations until the body is more fully developed. Boghog (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

First, you know me as LeProf, at the IP or not; don't start calling me by a number. Second, only one reference was removed, and it was removed to Talk (section above, to hold for later re-addition, and two more were added in the Figure). So net was to have one more citation than earlier, and you know this. Third, you make authoritative statements about a matter — citations a must in lead — that is not so equivocally clear as you state. Per WP:CREATELEAD and WP:LEADCITE, your statement that "the lead should contain citations until the body is more fully developed" is not an edict of either WP—state all applicable text that addresses this if you will, do not prooftext. This is just your opinion at this juncture; actual course is intended to be determined by consensus. However, you gave no time for my first-drafted lead to be considered, or for consensus to be tested. Instead, you trumped me, a hard-working editor, though my interest here preceded yours, and my work occurred before you arrived. For this I call you a scoundrel. (No thanks for following me here, motivation was clearly not respectful; see WP:HAR if it continues.) Moreover, how does your sudden commitment to the WPs allow you to leave lead citations not also in the main body text, when the WP clearly forbids this? Pot calls the kettle black? No, these are judgment calls, and it appears clear you believe only your judgment matters. Why, rather than slowing down, and developing the main body citations (where a tag has been in place for years), did you race to develop the lead with long-term unnecessary citations? One odd set of decisions, if one assumes good faith. To close, it is good to see you are developing a strong commitment regarding the need for citations throughout articles. It will be exciting to see you to bring the "religion", found on the road here, back to your regular editorial site of Steroid, where citation problems have long persisted, though citation needed and section referencing tags are anathema. WP:RESPECT or so much hypocrisy? Leprof 7272 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Archive 1" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (March 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A natural product is a chemical compound or substance produced by a living organism – found in nature that usually has a pharmacological or biological activity for use in pharmaceutical drug discovery and drug design. A natural product can be considered as such even if it can be prepared by total synthesis.

These small molecules provide the source or inspiration for the majority of FDA-approved agents and continue to be one of the major sources of inspiration for drug discovery. In particular, these compounds are important in the treatment of life-threatening conditions.^[2]

[ LEPROF ]

HERE BELOW IS THE NEW LEAD THAT I CONTRIBUTED LAST NIGHT. THE LEAD REWRITE WAS DONE SIMPLY TO CREATE AN OPENING WHICH IS WORTHY OF A GOOD ARTICLE ON NATURAL PRODUCTS.

CONTRARY TO THE TWO EDITORS WHO DID THE REVERSION AND SUBSEQUENT PATCH-UP:

• THERE WAS NO SPAM OR VANDALISM IN MY NEW LEAD;
• THERE IS NO CRIBBED MATERIAL TAKEN FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE; I AM A CONTENT EXPERT AND GENERATED THE WHOLE OF IT DE NOVO;
• NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE WAS LOST OF THE EARLIER LEAD; ALL OF ITS IDEAS AND MUCH OF ITS TEXT WAS INCORPORATE/ADAPTED;
• THERE WAS ONLY ONE CITATION IN THE EARLIER LEAD (SEE ABOVE), AND THIS COULD HAVE BEEN CONSERVATIVELY RE-PLACED IN THE MAIN BODY TEXT, WHERE IT BELONGED, RATHER THAN REVERTING MY SUBSTANTIAL AND POSITIVE REWRITE.

ALL OF THESE REASONS FOR ACTING ARE RED HERRINGS.

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS STATUS-QUO-MUST-REMAIN REVERSION, I HAVE TO REMOVE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE, FROM ANOTHER BIO ARTICLE I AM WRITING. THIS LEAD SIMPLY DOES NOT DO JUSTICE TO THE SUBJECT.

FINALLY, THESE TWO EDITORS APPEAR NEVER TO HAVE NEVER CONTRIBUTED SUBSTANTIALLY AT THIS ARTICLE, AT LEAST NOT IN RECENT TIMES. IN ENTERING AND REVERTING THIS NEW LEAD, THE HAVE IGNORED THE LONGSTANDING PROBLEMS DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLE TALK SECTION, AND HAVE IGNORED THE NEED HERE FOR QUALITY EDITS.

THEY SEEM TO ARRIVE HERE ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE ON A MISSION TO POLICE MY EDITING, I.E. THEY ARE STALKING. I WILL RAISE THIS MATTER HOWEVER I CAN, SO I CAN GET BACK TO EDITING AND CONTRIBUTING CONTENT. LEPROF.

LEAD THAT WAS REVERTED:

The term natural product has also been extended for commercial purposes to refer to dietary supplements and related products, and indeed to particular foods,[3] a lexicographic use that will not be the covered directly in this article.

Calm down and stop shouting. Did you bother to read my comments above? Your edits to this article were also problematic, in particular excessive use of

WP:PEACOCK terms and straying from the main topic of this article. Boghog (talk

) 16:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirects can also be made to article subsections. Hence I suggest for your purposes, a redirect to natural product synthesis is probably more appropriate. Boghog (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no shouting; the all caps were used to clearly delineate the header message from the main body, the new lead that I am One of Many reverted.

And of course I read your messages, all of them, in toto. They simply do not justify standing behind I am One of Many reversion, or editing the old lead to make my work seem unnecessary. Did you read the three Talk entries I made about the work I was doing, above, including re: a reference removal, before you let I am One of Many's reversion stand, and began your work?

The only reason for my editing was to create a lead for the article, so I could link to it from the new chemists bio article I am writing. You and I am One of Many are completely off.

My new lead could have been edited, and your allowing I am One of Many's reversion for perceived plagiarism and spam to stand—when you know neither of these is true—is completely disingenuous on your part. This flies in the face of all GOODFAITH collegial and rule-following overtures you have made to me. Shame on you.

Moreover, your rapid revision of the old lead that was in place prior, which was deeply flawed, seems to be aimed to make my edit seem unnecessary.

Even so, the lead still presents errors. Natural products are not only secondary metabolites; secondaries are the focus in modern times, but the term has always encompassed both primary and secondary, and more (see http://nccam.nih.gov/grants/naturalproducts for an even more expansive definition that is developing). And your aversion to NP synthetic references in the opening misses the fact that "NP chemistry" has no article, and links to the head of this one. I PUT SIGNIFICANT THOUGHT INTO WHAT I WAS DOING, WORKED HARD AND CREATED A NICE PRODUCT. (That was a shout.) What is your real beef?

Please, put my lead back in—demonstrate objectivity, over-ruling

WP:AGF

and recognize my competence). Put my new lead back in, and raise questions about specific parts of the text in Talk.

Bottom line, please don't do this mate. It's wrong to allow I am One of Many's reversion to stand. LeProf

I think

WP:AGF. The term natural product has several definitions. I agree in the broadest sense, natural products incorporate any organic substance produced by a living organism including fibers (cotton, wood) and fuels (oils and natural gas). On the other hand, a more restrictive definition limiting natural products to secondary metabolites is also frequently used. I will work on this further. Finally I suggest that we incorporate more details about the organic chemistry of natural products in the appropriate subsections instead of the lead. While natural products have had a profound influence on the development of organic chemistry, the scope of natural products is broader than organic chemistry. Boghog (talk

) 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have re-read what you have written, twice. I do understand what you are saying, and as an organic chemist, I am sympathetic to the emphasis that you are placing on organic synthesis in the lead. However we are writing for a wider audience than organic chemists. The lead should capture the full scope of the subject while at the same time, not giving undue weight to any one particular aspect of the topic. I think we can add more details about implications of natural products for organic chemistry to the lead, but at the same time, the lead should remain balanced. Boghog (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed is a new article on

natural product chemistry (which is currently a redirect to this article). However before creating a new article, I suggest that we develop this one further before splitting out a new article. Boghog (talk

) 18:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

With all that said, I want to encourage you to contribute. I am sorry our editorial relationship got off on the wrong foot because I like to work constructively with people. I'll be happy to help if I can, but otherwise I'll let you work it out with other editors who have a deeper interest in this article. I am One of Many (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As a specialist in this area, and an academic, and one obsessed with referencing (ask Bohog), and one who understands that leads that repeat information in the text need not supply references, and as one who has been accepted as not spamming, I would ask that my substantial effort to provide a first class lead be restored.

It was created in good faith (!), was preceded by a note in Talk, salvaged the one reference appearing in the lead to Talk for later re-entry in the main body, was conservative in maintaining as much of the earlier content as was correct and possible (see FDA, taxol, etc. mentions), though admittedly not yet as broad as some might wish it broadened the definition to be accurate in a scholarly way (to ORG and OM compounds from both primary and secondary metabolism—for Me-cobalamin is an OM from primary!), added an image of one of the classic natural products that launched the field, and otherwise exhibited expertise.

If some aspects of it need expansion or contraction, there is no gainsaying the lead was in better shape than it was before my work. (See the section above, The lead that was in place before...".) Bohog's well-referenced few edits to the earlier version, after the fact, will not be lost, and he can add them back first to main text, then can make sure they appear also in the lead.

Any need that is seen to add things in main body that are now only in the expanded lead can be tagged in the lead, and I will address them quickly. Differences about broadening the NP term even further can take place in Talk—with each side presenting text references to support. (Though respected, the NIH reference I provided—note I did extensive work toward future writing and referencing, and I have spoken at the NIH *.gov unit whose link I shared—is a limited perspective, and is not necessarily the consensus in the literature.) That is, there is not enough information on the table for us to be agreeing or disagreeing on this matter; that is for future Talk. The same suggestion for future Talk applies to the discussion of how much to talk about chemistry or anything else. These will all facilitate a better article in the long run.

Bottom line, out of respect for the error in reverting, and for the efforts and initiative I have taken on the flagged article, and for the fact I came to an article that has had problems and had not been touched by anyone since April—i.e., it has not been a primary editing site for Bohog, or anyone—I sincerely ask that my work be put back, and that we all be allowed to start from there. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I am One of Many was entirely correct in reverting unsourced material. I have since then worked hard at adding relevant high quality sources to support the statements in the lead (these can later be moved to the body of the article as the rest of the article is developed, but for the time being, it is essential that this citations remain in the lead). Furthermore is important not to give undue weight to any subtopic of the article in the lead. This scope of this article is greater than organic chemistry.

The following particularly strayed from the main topic of the article:

• In this regard, natural products play a central role in the training of new synthetic organic chemists, and are a principle motivation in the development of new variants of old chemical reactions (e.g., the
  Evans aldol reaction), as well as the discovery of completely new chemical reactions (e.g., the Woodward cis-hydroxylation, Sharpless epoxidation, and Suzuki–Miyaura
  cross-coupling reactions).

In addition, the following peacock terms were introduced in the previous version:

• critically important
• providing tremendously challenging targets
• extraordinarily central role

Finally I have worked to address at least some of the shortcoming of the present lead (e.g., added a broad definition + citation).

In summary, I think it would be a mistake to restore to the previous version. The present version of the lead is carefully source, balanced, and appropriate. If you still disagree, I think it would be appropriate to create a separate article on

natural product chemistry. Boghog (talk

) 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Note, I am One of Many, Bohog and I have history, as you will see.

Finally, I ask, almost certainly in vain, with Bohog's having spoken, that as the petitioner I be allowed this last word, and that I am One of Many be allowed to make his decision on taking back his reversion. Bohog's edits will not be in vain, they can be added back into the main text. The late work should not trump the extensive earlier, especially given its timing.

I ask again that my edition of the lead be restored, so we can go forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you read about how Wikipedia works. Because I reverted your edits does not mean that you cannot ultimately include them in some form. What it means is that you need to engage in a discussion about whether and to what extent they should be included. The main thing to keep in mind is that we are all trying to build an encyclopedia and build a good one. This means that we rely reliable sources. We include or exclude material based on consensus. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it does generally work. I suggest working with Bohog on this article and I'll bet that it turns out to be much improved over what it was. I am One of Many (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have ben editing for years, see LeProf_7272, the second of my aliases, first one retired because of real world security issues, the same reason that I keep a stable IP, but no longer log. My text was reverted because you thought it was spam, and now you know it is not. My text was reverted because you thought it was plagiarized, but now you know it is not. I tell you references can go into the lead, and I am willing to add them (or better, beef up the main text and make lead references unnecessary). Will you reverse your reversion? You can see from the edits, I began editing here at NP first, and Bohog came in only after the issue arose, and hurriedly edited the earlier version, muddying the waters. How can you suggest I work with him, giving him primacy when he has never had interest here, until I expressed mine? The issue is the initial revert, and whether I can be trusted, and given a day, to add references to it. Please, you have to see, that to allow this to stand, you are rewarding the low-punching player here... LeProf

Please note the current lead now contains a expanded definition of natural product that is supported by the NIH source. Please also note that the previous version of the lead was not supported by reliable sources while the current version of the lead is. Furthermore edits that produced the current version of the lead were not rushed but were made very carefully. Finally the timing of edits is irrelevant. What matters is content.

Repeating what I stated above, the present version of the lead is carefully source, balanced, and appropriate. We can move forward with the current version and add back in material from 50.179.92.36 LeProf. However I believe much of this previously added material is more appropriate for the synthesis section rather than the lead. Boghog (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can make rapid changes to an article that you had never edited before I expressed interest in it, while my version is tied up in a reversion discussion. I could have added added references to the lead, or added content to the body making lead references unnecessary, except for your interference. You said you would never revert text, but here, you have, effectively done so through your choices to edit while the reversion matter was unsettled. It is pure hypocrisy, and the chasing me here, very pathetic. There is no trust left between us, so enjoy your new article. Know, I will do what I have to, to prevent further stalking. LeProf, or as you liked to say, 50.179.92.36, your Javert to my Jean Valjean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have re-added most of LeProf's previous contributions to the lead to a

natural product chemistry article. Boghog (talk

) 22:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, nothing changed. You work at a pharma, you have been in higher education. You are aware of social dynamics and organizational game-playing (internal politics, as we say). You followed me here to NP (never had edited here before), edited while I was arguing for a reversion that need never have happened, and so intentionally co-opted my lead, and now you offer a "for what it's worth" that you have only moved it about, developing it toward your separate ends for the article. You are either inured to the needs/social signals of those around you, or you simply don't care. Either way, your behaviour, particularly in light of earlier WP-this and WP-that pronouncements, make you an impossible editorial/professional partner. I am no walk in the park, but I am up front, at least. Well, do as you please, but don't expect my participation. No crew huzzah's for ordering tots of rum after turning bow to la Porte des Morts. Fin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear error of substance in the lead that now gives this article a component of nonsense in its course/direction.

It follows from Boghog applying a supplemental web-based definition I provided him and others in order to make the case that "natural product" means more than secondary metabolite; the web definition appears to then have been used more broadly, without giving it due thought in the context of the literature.

Having followed the work of, and having visited twice and spoken at the NIH unit that Boghog cites as defining "natural products [in the broadest sense to] include any substance produced by life", I would argue strongly that it was never their intention in presenting their brief content on natural products to create an authoritative, literature-based, and broadly applicable definition of this term. Rather, it was to define what aspects of the term that they—as a unit of the federal research establishment, and the key unit supporting translational research—would be working to support through their programmatic and staff efforts. There is a real difference, for those willing to take time to consider.

What looks most foolish in Boghog's representation, through the quotation appearing in footnote 2, is that probiotics are natural products. Probiotics are microorganisms.

I do not know anyone working in the field of natural products—their isolation, structure determination, assays of bioactivities, study of in vivo and semiochemical roles, etc.—none who would recognize the "extension" promoted through this lead sentence, of the title term. Boghog was too quick to deveop this content, and seemingly gave it far too shallow thought, instead relying on his instincts to get a patch-up job done quickly. (Note beginning to end timestamps of revisions, and clear lack of use of a sandbox.)

Finally, note, 9 of 11 citations appearing in this recent, rapidly revised lead do not appear in the main body of the text, contrary to WP:CREATELEAD (where it states "there should not be any references in the lead which have not first been used in the body"). On the other hand, in other ways, WP:LEADCITE was ignored, where it states "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus ... presence of citations in [this lead] introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." (The rush to add citations to this lead was to undercount a competing lead that I had created, far different from, but earlier than his, that did not have citations, instead, relying on citations to follow in the main body.)

I will not respond to any reply from Boghog. This is for the community reading this page to consider and respond to. Bluntly put, probiotics are not natural products, despite their appearance on the NCCAM site, and in this rushed redefinition (seemingly, in order for this editor to establish his primacy at an article he had never before visited). The definition is not a reflection of the consensus of the natural products literature, but only of Boghog's rapid, near top of the head effort, and so it is deeply flawed as it stands. Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The error in the citation is not mine, but the source. Furthermore Leprof 7272 originally suggested this source. Overall the source is correct, but the source made one error. This can easily be fixed by deleting the last line of the quotation.

As I previously stated above, the body of the article should ideally be written before the lead but this rarely happens. As the article develops, we can move these citations from the lead into the body of the article. Furthermore having citations in the lead is far preferable to having no citations at all.

Finally the lead that Leprof 7272 wrote is appropriate for a new

natural product chemistry article. Boghog (talk

) 05:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As you define the direction of the article, the lead I wrote is not appropriate. As you define the target audience and scope of the article. Perhaps you are a bridge player, and see yourself as perpetual trump. How this article should proceed is not for you to determine alone. You have never edited here, before following me to this article days ago. Invite others to decide with you, how this should go. You are not the final say about any of it (though you continually act as if you have the right to be). Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When the recent edit battle began over this section, the lead in place was as it appears above, in section "The lead that was in place...". (Wherever the the term lead is used, the more proper term lede is recognized, but omitted for simplicity.)

This I replaced with a lead that was polite and respectful, in trying to keep as much of the earlier lead ideas, but also far more comprehensive, and far more tied to the actual literature of natural products as it appears in the chemical and biosciences literatures. Even so, the lead I offered was quite different than the one that appears above. Note, I was the first person since April to attempt extensive work here to improve the article (one minor edit, in November). The alternative lead I produced can be seen above in section "Conflict with two editors...".

This alternative lead was reverted by I am One of Many, believing it might be spam or plagiarism. While he and I were discussing, making clear it was not spam, and not plagiarism, Boghog entered the discussion, pointing out that the original lead that was in place had been expanded, and that it was now good enough, so there was no need to introduce my lead, which lacked references. You see, while I am One of Many and I were discussing the reversion issue, Boghog had rushed and introduced a number of sentences and citations into the old lead, to make it more acceptable and substantial. I call this reprehensible conduct, especially given that Boghog had never edited at this article before, and had followed me here after we had heated discussions at the Steroid article. I believe he thinks I need to be taught lessons in proper Wikipedia editing, and in humility (despite the ways in which WP:HAR and Wikipedia:RESPECT might be implied to himself).

I am writing this further entry to point out two plagiarisms, one historic, one continuing, which Bohog contributed to, by supporting reversion of my completely re-written lead, and by not re-examining the clearly deeply flawed original lead text that he supported and edited (which, it turns out, was plagiarized). We faculty members with recent experience teaching are good for a little something, it seems.

I will not comment further, because the plagiarism, past and continuing is self-evident. I hope the community wakes up to such practices and editors, and begins to learn some lessons here (including those with no expertise in this area, that revert on the basis of computational cues suggesting vandalism). Had I am One of Many not begun this battle with his reversion, none of this mess would have ensued.

______________

Plagiarism source:

• A natural product is a chemical compound or substance produced by a living organism - found in nature that usually has a pharmacological or biological activity for use in pharmaceutical drug discovery and drug design. A natural product can be considered as such even if it can be prepared by total synthesis. See "Book Description" section, at http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Products-Bioactivity-Applications-Biochemistry/dp/1620817284/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386649775&sr=1-8 [accessed 9 Dcember 2013].

Original plagiarism in the "The lead that was in place..." (earlier):

• A natural product is a chemical compound or substance produced by a living organism - found in nature that usually has a pharmacological or biological activity for use in pharmaceutical drug discovery and drug design. A natural product can be considered as such even if it can be prepared by total synthesis. See The lead that was in place... section above, or the Article/View History, version date-stamped 18:19, 18 November 2013. The editing that followed, from IP 50.179.92.36, at 05:29, 7 December 2013, was by me, and and can be seen above in section "Conflict with two editors...".

Components in the lead in the current article from the plagiarized source, as of the time-stamp at my signature below:

• A natural product is a chemical compound or substance produced by a living organism - found in nature. ... (Paragraph 1)

...sometimes have pharmacological or biological activity... ... (Paragraph 3)

...often used as starting points for drug discovery... ... (Paragraph 3)

Natural products can also be prepared by total synthesis... ... (Paragraph 4)

Opening sentence of the alternative lead that I created, that was reverted, beginning the Conflict with two editors...

• A natural product is an organic or organometallic chemical compound generated by a biosynthetic pathway of a living organism and isolated and purified using chemical purification techniques; alternatively it is an synthetic (artificial) product synthesized and shown to have precisely matching physical, spectroscopic, and chemical properties to such a purified natural substance. Natural products may be produced by pathways of either primary or secondary metabolism; early efforts in natural products synthesis targeted complex substances as cobalamin (vitamin B12, at right), an essential cofactor in all of metabolism. ... (Paragraph 1)

Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the plagiarized text that existed before we both started to edit this article. This clearly needs to be replaced. I will work to fix that. Boghog (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course you will fix it now, lol. And very fast I imagine. But like "He gave me the definition I misused" excuse above, this "It was already there I just missed it" excuse goes far to indicate the level of care and of sandbox work you do before releasing your writing. One of us caught and eliminated this bit of the plagiarism rampant in un-cited scientific Wikipedia text. The other did not, because he does not care to. Hubris applies only to one of us here. Otherwise, enjoy this further article that you have co-opted. I will not be contributing, because you have proven yourself a scoundrel. But I will calling out mistakes as I see them. And this is the last word you will ever receive direct from me. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On closer inspection, this is a case of reverse plagiarism. The disputed text was in this Wikipedia article before the book was published (September 30, 2012)! Boghog (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The text in question was added on 27 December 2006, almost 7 years before the book was published. Boghog (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Be careful: Or both were taken from... ? [interruption was due to a service outage up here] Two of the plagiarism search tools I use disclose this text in several locations. I acted upon the first, because the date stamp indicated by the search tool was prior to the wikipedia article, and I did not (do not yet) realize that these Amazon book descriptions are not professionally derived. I will look to this and the other plagiarism hits, and to your date stamp argument, to see if it still holds broadly. If it turns out all arise from Wikipedia in the beginning, I will acknowledge (and it will not be reverse anything, given free use of Wiki text, just repeatedly cribbed and tolerated bad writing). Still, it is clear you missed all of this cross-nonsense in your rush to edit.

Meanwhile, I stand by the claims (a) that the original lead was deficient, (b) that the opening line of the lead remains bad, (c) that you improved the bad lead after "following" (read WP:HAR), apparently to spite this editor and to impose yourself in an article where prior you had had no interest, (d) that in editing while the reversion issue was yet up in the air, you edited in bad faith and violated your own touted rules related to AGF and RESPECT, (e) that the result, if not the intent, was your hijacking the article in a direction other than you perceived I was intending to take it, (f) that you continued in this disrespect in prior discussion of none your proposed use/changes to my text, in Talk, despite my arriving to edit at this article before you and my continued presence throughout, and (g) that your parsing up my lead text into pieces, and inserting it according to your plans for the article are consistent with the foregoing picture of your disrespect. I as well stand by the description of your eisegetical writing and referencing practices—your generally misguided approach to compose your text, then to seek snippets from sources to support your representations.

Finally, I apologize for addressing you directly, but with the possibility of a mistaken argument for plagiarism (not that it was yours, just that in your sloppy practices, you missed it) it would be most respectful to address your rebuttal directly. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A Google search did not reveal any earlier sources. Boghog (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking further, I found this:

Nat´u`ral prod´cut n.1.(Chem., Biochem.) A chemical substance produced by a living organism; - a term used commonly in reference to chemical substances found in nature that have distinctive pharmacological effects. Such a substance is considered a natural product even if it can be prepared by total synthesis.
— Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co

For works registered or first published in the U.S. before 1923 are considered in the

WP:PD). Boghog (talk

) 06:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the {{

1913 Webster's Dictionary}} template to this article to provide attribution to the text incorporated from the public domain 1913 Webster's Dictionary. Boghog (talk

) 07:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Great source. Much better written than the current lead. Closer to my reverted definition than yours (which focuses on only secondary metabolism, skirts the primary where the modern field was borne, and does so despite my having led in the direction of both primary and secondary, giving literature references (through the figure legend) in support. You might have a look at these:

• http://pac.iupac.org/publications/pac/conferences/family/ISCNP/

before you begin tooting a horn for the lame definition that was in place before, and that remains substantially in place now. Once again you are searching for support for your point of view, instead of being a scholar, and stepping back, and asking what this expression means, most rigorously, and most appropriately, now. The term has evolved, and some lexicographic nuances do belong in the article, others not. (You allow that probiotics do not, thank goodness.) Stop looking always to justify your rightness, and look to identify best, and most supported ideas (rather than looking to support your quick, instinctive direction-taking. A lot has happened in 25 years. And I will let go of my chip on shoulder, and insecurity arguements for you, if I see evidence of something more than this self-justifying approach. Though the scoundrel will remain, until you come clean. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If the opening line is so bad, was it maintained in this article for seven years and even used by the above mentioned monograph? Again, the lead written by Leprof 7272 is simply not appropriate for the scope and the intended audience of this article. The current lead is. Boghog (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now we shift to the third person again? Shall I log off so you can refer to a number? In any case, it is unclear what "monograph" used this lead, unless you are referring to the Amazon book description (not the book itself) that you discredited as likely cribbed. And of course, longevity of unaltered material is the hallmark of rigor, like the longstanding EB description of a war that never took place. From you, this takes the form of a 1913 lay dictionary capturing how a natural product should be described 100 years later. Sigh. Yes, you are right. You are the final arbiter of the scope and intended audience of all these chem-biol interface articles, for your degree and 25 years experience teaching. What role can another editor have, alongside one who is always so categorically and completely correct as you? Still the original lead was most awful, at best, dated; and you kept it even in the poorly copyedited, dash containing opening sentence. Your broader lead revision ... well it represents you very well, and scholarship only a little. That B12 is an OM, we know know this while in '13 of the last century they did not, and it was seminal in many aspects of modern NP work—isolation, structure determination, synthesis. But, that I included it as seminal compound, makes in inappropriate. Could not possibly be right that it was an apt molecule for the lead, moreso than taxol; no, could not he a contributor on that or anything else. Stuff was shyte, no value for a lead; must be, since you disagree with it. Not, just that as a first draft it had stilted prose; it also has to be that there is nary a good idea in it—LeProf has no clue next to you. Well, fine again. I agree to disagree. Cheers. Another article yours. As you imply, nothing to contribute, and so nothing more to say. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The proposal that a part of a quotation be used—that its last part be deleted—because it no longer supports the text argument for a particular definition is to propose an approach to scholarship that is simply dishonest. If the citation chosen does not fully support the argument of the text—allowing for stylistic redactions where full meaning is consistent with full meaning—there is a reason, and the reason must be weighed, and acted upon.

In this case, the definition from the NCCAM web citation used in the article, until moments ago, was—as I have already noted above—never intended as an authoritative, literature-based, and broadly applicable definition of natural products. Rather, it appears only at a website of a service-oriented unit of the US Government's National Institutes of Health dedicated to promoting and supporting translational research (which includes probiotics, and many other things that fall outside the scope of the title of this article). How they define the scope of their programmatic and staff support for external research efforts is immaterial to a good, literature-derived definition of the title term, natural product.

This clear editor mis-step is a part of a broader pattern of composing text off top of head, and then adding sources later, that is carried out often by some editors/contributors here at Wikipedia. This, rather than faithfully considering the whole of the scholarly literature on a subject (which, of course takes more time), then seeking to reflect it in the articles, then adding selectively from the total array of considered references, those appropriate to summarize that consensus of scholarly opinion. If you will forgive me for borrowing terms from another discipline that nevertheless apply: the former is what is termed

I note, as of this timestamp, that editor Boghog has already deleted the part of the reference 2 quote with which he now appreciates he disagrees (my having called attention), that natural products include the microorganisms in probiotics. But editor Boghog leaves in the rest of the quote, in support of his lead text. Per the above, I declare this an improper reference and use of reference, for its selectively misleading use and so misrepresentation of the definition this source actually provides. The easy way out. Disingenuous, at least. I will place the appropriate tag. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the authors of that source included one word in error does not in any way invalidate the whole source. Reliable sources frequently contain small errors, yet these sources are still considered reliable. I will remove inappropriate tags. Boghog (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Mate, it is simply not a valid source, for an encyclopedia article on what the term natural product means to the vast majority of people who knowledgeably use it. But you cannot remove the quote, because you can never be wrong, even in part, even in small things. That is why you chase me around. Well, feel important. Take parts of quotes in support of your eisegetical arguments. Skip the broader argument about the aim of the NCCAM site. You must be right. It is you, after all. And of course you'll remove tags you deem inappropriate, because damn WP, you can't bear to be other than the final arbiter between us, here. You must be correct on this, as you are on all judgments about which we differ. Your years of broad experience teaching make you the final word. Well, enjoy; it's your article. Have at it maestro. All yours, as we'll see again in a moment Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I simply wanted to point out that you were the one that originally supplied the link to the NCCAM site to support a broader definition of natural product. The Webster definition also supports the broad definition. There is a spectrum of definitions ranging from (1) any substance produced by life to (2) primary + secondary metabolites to (3) secondary metabolites only. All three definitions (and probably several additional definitions) can be backup by reliable sources. The NCCAM site supports the broad definition. Boghog (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My web citation, to stimulate discussion. Your decision, not mine, to use it as a sole source to justify a poor lead definition. Here is a thought: Generate the critical content and discussion with consensus before you place/change things that you expect to have some stability. This cooperation and collegiality is what you expect of others; demand it of yourself. Provide some citations for people who define the term NP in various fields, ask others to add, then with the group arrive at a definition. If you cannot manage/lead scientists to agree upon the definition of the subject of the article, you are not fit to lead the overall process of seeing the article through to excellence. You say it is easier to remove text, and add commentary than to contribute. I say it is equally easy to plow ahead, indifferent to the clear stated requests of another editor or editors, than it is to show true leadership, here, or in general. That is my time in pharma speaking. Lead all interested parties in deciding upon a definition. Then lead in executing an article that expands upon that definition. If you alone define, you set the agenda. The article becomes yours (or, squabbles ensue ad infinitum, because a consensus was never developed around the point of the article in the first place). Your call, but I'm not working on another article where others are expected to work within frameworks that you alone define. You did this at steroid — you shortshrifted my call for a revamp, and took it solely upon yourself to create a revised outline (no call for discussion, no User:Talk messages to other editors, nothing). You are beginning to do it here. Nonstarter for me, and if it proceeds, it is a matter that will get outside scrutiny. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are three definitions of natural products each supported by a reliable source:

• Samuelson G (1999). Drugs of Natural Origin: A Textbook of Pharmacognosy. Taylor & Francis Ltd,.
  ISBN 9789186274818.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link
  )

• Hanson JR (2003). Natural products : the secondary metabolite. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.
  ISBN 0-85404-490-6
  .

• Bhat SV, Nagasampagi BA, Sivakumar M (2005). Chemistry of Natural Products. Berlin ; New York: Springer.
  ISBN 81-7319-481-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
  )

Consistent with the above sources, the current lead makes it clear that are a range of definitions for natural products from anything produced by life (and for that matter whole organisms) to secondary metabolites. Boghog (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A failed verification tag is added, when, per WP:

• "an inline citation to a source is given,
• you have checked the source,
• the source does not support what is contained in the article, and
• despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic."

Perhaps the most important element of a non-biographic lead in the sciences is the definition of the title term.

This failed verification tag is placed because the principle quote being used to support the definition given in the opening two sentences of the lead (a) is not consistent with the full quote from this source, (b) is vague and therefore somewhat misleading relative to various actual definitions and examples that appear throughout the literature, and so (c) does not coincide in a number of respects with the definitions of the subject most widely used by practitioners involved in the study of natural products, in any number of fields.

In particular, I note that the quote being used in support of the definition is a web-based source, from a government agency whose broad aim is to support a wide variety of types of translational research, and that in stating which areas they wish to support they are making no claim to be providing an encyclopedic definition of the title subject. In fact, in describing natural products in the full quote from this source, it provides a description so overly broad—it makes reference to microbe preparations as natural products—that the editor choosing the quote at first included, then redacted that part of the quote as not supporting his definition/thesis.

I would also note that, per the WP, the citation does contain information of value (when the aim of the site is properly acknowledged); however, in the editor's parsing the citation's quoted definition into what he would and would not include, and in doing so without further sources, the editor is introducing original research (his own perspective) about the true definition of the title term. I do not believe we wish an editor's opinion; I believe we want the opinion of a consensus of literature secondary sources (or at least literature representatives) for the lead of this important article. Without whatever further elements might belong in it, the current result is vague sounding at best (more below).

I would further note that the expression "natural product" appears in more than 1050 reviews, per Pubmed search as of the timestamp of this Talk entry. If 1% of these are sufficiently on point and authoritative, there is ample material to make a website for a governmental support agency unnecessary as a defining source.

As well, I would note that the existence in the literature of a wide variety of expressions to denote non-purified chemical preparations derived from natural sources belies a further erroneous definition element yet contained in the cited and quoted web definition: if the practitioners in the field routinely feel the need to make reference to natural product mixtures, extracts, cocktails, libraries, etc. (and the inverted expressions of all these and related terms), then they are indicating a practical working distinction between a natural product, and natural products appearing in anything less than purified form. The NCCAM does not need to exclude mixtures from its definition, because it is seeking to define what external research endeavours they support (and there is good reason to support work on extracts and mixtures). But to include mixtures, etc. is not to offer an encyclopedic definition with broad applicability and utility; not to get overly philosophical, but the thing itself is not the same as the thing as a component of something larger. This, with the probiotics inclusion, is a second flaw in the decision to use this web source as the sole citation and quote for the central definition of the lead.

Finally, the second sentence of the lead, and its doubtful aspects, interrelate with further weakness in the opening sentence, where the distinction implied between "chemical compound or substance" is unclear—it may be intending one of the two terms to imply a pure chemical, and the other not, but with only one linked to a Wikipedia article (and with these two wikipedia articles vague as to the distinction between compound and substance, vis-a-vis purity), the result of this "A or B" construction is ambiguity. In the same way the reference to their being "produced by a living organism" (as opposed to a non-living organism?) and to their being produced by "a living organism – found in nature" (as opposed to organisms, found where? in laboratory?) confuses mightily, but appears moreover to be completely deattached from the cited web definition. Scroll over the citation number and see. Indeed it should be; per earlier Talk, these definition components, if somewhat distilled, derived from a 100 year old out-of-copyright dictionary, and not the cited web source. Taken together, the first and second sentence neither reflect the fully quoted citation, nor do they provide an accurate and succinct summary of the portion of the quote that actually was allowed to appear.

I therefore request further non-web-based secondary or primary sources to support a good, final definition in the lead, and that this web-source be dispensed with except perhaps as a point of comparison to other literature sources.

While I know this component of the argument cannot be weighed, I am stating the foregoing with confidence as a practitioner whose research has long involved natural products, and as one with good working knowledge (through visits and relationships) to a key group in the organization that has posted the definition that I'm asking be set aside (despite the highest regard for NCCAM in all its functions).

With regard, Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The longer the explanation, the less likely someone will read it (TL;DR) . Boghog (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A century of work on natural products, and you cannot read a long paragraph to clarify meaning about what the subject should actually entail. See note above, with suggestion how to proceed. Your forensic referencing of bad text, and misuse of web citation to support your thrust for the article—to personally, without discussion, set the key definition that will shape the article—will not proceed without scrutiny. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

NCCAM is a reliable source and of course additional sources can be supplied. These sources support a spectrum of definitions, from broad to narrow. A natural product, whether it is purified or not, is still a natural product. To characterize a natural product, it must be purified, but the essence of a natural product is not how pure it is, but rather its chemical structure. Finally the real practitioners of natural products are the bugs that produce them. Boghog (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a citation:

• Bhat SV, Nagasampagi BA, Sivakumar M (2005). Chemistry of Natural Products. Berlin ; New York: Springer.
  ISBN 81-7319-481-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
  )

• Samuelson G (1999). Drugs of Natural Origin: A Textbook of Pharmacognosy. Taylor & Francis Ltd,.
  ISBN 9789186274818.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link
  )

I have added the first citation to the lead and took down the failed verification flag. Boghog (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I compared what you have written to date—since your "I have to fix this Leprof work also" entree into this article—to teaching and writings of a friend and colleague who is a past editor of the preeminent NP journal, and a respected elder statesman in the field, and based thereon (and on other sources), I simply cannot support the fundamental definitions you are promoting, and so cannot support the direction you are taking the article. I would simply note, again, that rather than seeking to understand a real consensus of scientific opinion on a subject, you promote your personal intellectual perspective, and then prooftext it—though when others do anything approaching the same, you soundly thrash them. The fundamental practice of taking such great confidence in your personal perspective, and not seeking to have the whole of important literature contributions guide you—it is first, poor scholarship, and second, it is entirely self-serving egoism. Given your manner of working, I leave it to you to make it as good an article of yours as you can. I have no interest in serving whatever it is in you that is fed by this approach, and by your compulsion to trump others; better things to do. Here's hoping for you a transformative holiday season. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted previously, the challenged "definition" of natural product given in the quotation of reference [3] appears on a web page in support of the mandate of a federal agency to support particular types of external (university) research. When the scope of that agency's support changes, their "definition" can and will change. (It did not exist at all, until recently.) Hence, the "definition" they supply simply is not a broadly held or a peer-reviewed definition by any means. As such it is not a reliable source to guide a valid, broadly held definition that provides overarching direction to the article.

Moreover, on reading that "definition", editor Boghog decided, after being challenged, that one element of that federal agency's scope—that the term "natural product" includes whole organisms (probiotics)—went further than he thought instinctively proper. He therefore retained the citation, and most of the quotation, just deleting the last offending line of it. To this deletion, I responded with the failed verification tag, because the text no longer accurately reflected the source's complete content on the matter.

Subsequently, editor Boghog has found one monograph (with its basis, in turn, being one earlier monograph), that also extends the "definition" to include organisms. With this self-affirming discovery, he reversed his deletion of the part of the quotation referring to probiotics, and removed the failed verification tag. This search of support for a held-opinion is, in my opinion,

Returning the claims that minerals, and probiotics and other whole organisms are natural products to the text simply returns us to a point that was originally ceded as errant, but that is now being reaffirmed on scant scholarly support: Boghog is again inherently representing these components of the "definition" as reflecting a consensus of scientific opinion, when it is based on a very limited scholarly set of citations (one citing one preceding).

As I have stated to Boghog elsewhere, I believe that one can find one or even a small set of citations to support any of a variety of definitions of the title term; this does not make any such definition the preponderance of scientific opinion on the matter. Simply put, what we are being given is what Boghog believes or wishes to be the scope of the term, rather than its actual scope, in the relevant natural product literatures.

Until such time as a change in this tenacious and indeed ruling editor's attitude occurs that allows the matter to become the subject of broader discussion, allowing the hard work of identifying the elements of a scholarly consensus, the fundamental problem with the article remains. Until Boghog allows a community of natural products devotees to comment, directly or indirectly, he has the cart before the horse. And as his wont, he will surely create a tidy, reasonably well-presented article, and make it very hard for others to alter—though in doing so, the thrust will remain his, and not that of the majority of the scholars and practitioners in the field. An article with broad writing before proper definition and outline is no more useful in moving people's understanding forward than a cart is when placed before a horse. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to have discussions aimed at improving articles, not to attack other editors (see

WP:TALK

). Focus on the edits, not the editors.

Per

WP:UNDUE, Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. There are reliable sources that support a wide definition of natural products while other sources support a narrower definition. Hence it appropriate that both definitions are included in this article. Within the field of organic chemistry, the narrower definition predominates. However the scope of this article is wider than organic chemistry. Likewise the intended audience of this article is wider than "natural products devotees", it also includes the general public. In other words, this article should not function simply as a shrine to the practitioners of natural product chemistry. Rather it should include both majority and significant minority view points that are supported by reliable sources. IMHO, the current lead accomplishes this. Boghog (talk

) 10:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice try to selectively use WP policies to support your personal ends with this article. What your lead accomplishes, simply, is expression of your opinion regarding the correct definition of the title phrase, feigned humility aside. What percent of all reports in 1913-2013 that refer to natural products, directly or indirectly, use all components of your definition? I would propose less than a percent, and of those referenced, in that percent, you will not find the leading institutions, laboratories and esteemed leaders in the field using the broad definition, with equality of status to the various elements, as you do. Hence, what you have done is selected a minimal, unrepresentative portion of the vast NP literature to support your argument. This is the

prooftexting I refer to. The vast majority of all reports making reference, directly or indirectly to NP research, discuss small molecule secondary and primary organics — NOT MINERALS, NOT ORGANISMS (PROBIOTIC OR OTHERWISE), AND NOT POLYMERIC / OLIGOMERIC BIOLOGICS. In elevating insignificant elements in the broad research of this field to equal status in your definition, you defy usage in the field. Quote all the WPs you want to feel good about it, this is not what WP policies intend for science articles. I see such distortions nowhere in featured articles. This broad, proof-texted definition is yours, and not the fields. Finally, when an editor's persistent approach and stubbornness defines (or seeks to define) an article, the editor becomes the article's issue. You, personally, are such an issue. If you follow me to edit to another article that you have never edited before, I will bring your behaviour forward. Meanwhile, I am not wasting another moment on your self-absorbed need to dominate this article's development, particularly as your involvement and understanding is, for whatever reason, decades behind generally understood norms of NP scope and practice. Enjoy this, another of your article fiefdoms. The masterful job you are doing here and at steroid to stymy another chemistry editor's involvement is a real feather in your 25 year medichem cap. Leprof 7272 (talk

) 06:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The spectrum of definitions in the current lead (ranging from anything produced by life to purified secondary metabolites) is not mine, it is the definition used by reliable sources. This article's current description of Gunnar Samuelsson's broad definition is not

close paraphrasing. Within the field of organic/medicinal chemistry, I agree that the definition is usually restricted to mean purified organic substances obtained from natural sources. I have edited

the lead to reflect that. Furthermore the predominate definition within these fields is usually restricted to secondary metabolites. It is also clear that natural products can also be prepared by total synthesis as stated in the last paragraph of the current lead.

Per

WP:UNDUE, each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In the current lead, there is one sentence that is devoted to the broad definition. The remainder of the lead (paragraphs 2, 3, and 4) are devoted to the narrow definition. Hence each definition in the current lead is proportional to its prominence. What may be debatable is that the article starts out with the broad definition. However I would argue that this is appropriate since it follows a logical progression (from broad to narrow) and also is appropriate for the intended audience (the general public). Boghog (talk

) 09:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, I have also explicitly added the "middle of the road" definition used by organic chemists based on language used in a previous version of the manuscript. In summary, there is a spectrum of definitions:

• anything produced by life – compatible with its use within the field of consumer products
• primary or secondary metabolites – organic chemistry definition
• secondary metabolites – medicinal chemistry definition

Bosco911 above said it best: Please keep in mind that this term is used in fields different from the one you have been working in.. Boghog (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that Bosco was not talking about this issue, nor to me, but about an earlier proposal to merge this article, to another editor. Repurposing of an unrelated editor's statement, without clarification, to support your case—this is another manifestation of your proof-texting approach to support your perspective, rather than an open-minded approach to the subject at hand. LeProf

Within the scope of this article, the horse represents natural products while the cart is organic chemistry. The previous version of the lead had definitely put the cart before the horse. Boghog (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking now, to the article as a whole, though the following will still apply to an extent to the lede, given the broad-to-narrow philosophical stance of the controlling editor: Cart and horse fails as an analogy, and with the limited referencing currently includes, the forest is largely missed for the trees. The connotation of the term "natural product" has long ago moved beyond the formal combination of a general adjective modifying a general noun; the combination of the two terms, having appeared together for so long, in particular contexts, has a distinctive combined meaning. If one runs searches in Thomson Reuters WOK/WOS tools, or some other non-commercially biased, fully broad means of gathering information (not Google), one sees that the term "natural product" is first and foremost a chemistry term (not necessarily organic, but primarily organic); when it appears otherwise, which is only a small percentage of all appearances in the important non-commercial source literatures, it is often a reversion to the earlier and still sometimes-quoted sense of it being any product of nature. To elevate this minor connotation, ignoring this enormous preponderance of academic and scientific usage, and to justify it with selective sourcing, placing the most minor of possible connotations (that a natural product is an entire organism!) to be at the forefront and apparently equivalent to the most widespread, common connotation (that a natural product is an organic or organometallic chemical originally derived from nature) is abstract pedagogy or personal perspective/opinion at best, errant, if not ridiculously awful, pedagogy at worst. One can take exert editorial control and privilege, and use single/weak sources to attempt to alter this firm reality, but it will not change the broad reality, not on short order if at all. Bad news (from my perspective, in any case) is, that if one makes an article strange enough, or mistaken enough, or makes its editorial evolution challenging enough, the very people most expert in the subject will ignore it as a waste in time to alter or contribute to, and so the article will remain as it is, for a very long time. Cheers. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.