Talk:Secosteroid

I would submit that referring to the secosteroid cholecalciferol as a "vitamin" is an outdated notion based on the observation that oral intake of irradiated foodstuffs could prevent rickets (c.f., e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets ). In addition to the fact that this metabolite is synthesized endogenously (like "non-essential" amino acids) under historically normal environmental circumstances, cholecalciferol and its analog ergocalciferol are not widely distributed in human diets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodowdus (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making definition consistent with web definitions, and across wikipedia

In particular, the restriction of the definition to B-ring scissions, based on the singular cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) example, is corrected. (A variety of ring scissions are possible and are indeed well-known.)

In addition the dead google books link to the Ayers citation was fixed, and the URL for the UArizona Press was used to replace it. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted course-changing edit until consensus can be achieved

Undid revision 617093861 by Boghog (talk).

Undoing until discussion reaches consensus, see Wikiprojects Chemistry Talk page, to which Boghog and Wikiproject Pharmacology have been directed. This edit arises following conflict at the Steroid article, see Talk there, where the argument is made to exclude secosteroids from consideration as steroids because they lack the protypical tetracyclc 6-6-6-5 structure. The change here, especially in the way the opening sentence is constructed, moves secos from being a part of steroids to not, with consequences at the Steroids article. Note, this decision — which is a decision away from following IUPAC and NLM Mesh nomenclature/categories, to prioritizing web definitions above them because they are consistent with the direction of the desired change—will also have impact on norsteroids, homosteroids, aza- and oxa-steroids, all of which are considered by IUPAC and all major journals as steroids, but which fail the underlying test that Boghog wishes, that of invariant 6-6-6-5 carbocyclic rings. This is an important question, editor Boghog knew (thorugh Talk at Steroids) he did not have consensus to proceed, so I am reverting until all voices wishing can weigh in. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: The proper place to have this discussion is here, not on the chemistry project talk page. A short neutral note on the project talk page directing editors to this discussion would have been appropriate. Returning to the issue of how the lead of this article should be written, from 2006 when the article was first created until May 2014, the first sentence read:

"a secosteroid is a molecule similar to a steroid but with a 'broken' ring".

In May of 2014, this was replaced with:

"Secosteroids (sec·o·ster·oid, sek'ō-stēr'oyd) are a subclass of the tetracyclic steroid class that are structural relatives bearing a cleavage of one of the four rings of that parent class.".

In addition, three of the four citations that were supplied to support this new definition stated that a secosteroid was "a compound derived from a steroid in which there has been a ring cleavage". I have two problems with the May 2014 changes. First, the very simple opening sentence was replaced by a more complex sentence. We are writing for the general public, not chemists who already know what a secosteroid is. Therefore it is especially important that the opening sentence be written in a way so that it can be understood by a wide audience. Second, there are two definitions. A common definition where secosteroids are derived from steroids and a second technical definition where secosteroids are defined as a subclass of steroids. I believe that this article should contain both definitions so that it is consistent with how it described in both the technical and non-technical literature. Because of these concerns, I edited the article to (1) restore the original, simple opening sentence and (2) include both definitions in the second sentence:

"Secosteroids are variously defined as a subclass of steroids[1] or derived from steroids.[2]".

I therefore request that my edits be restored. Boghog (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for the larger community, as you and I disagree about the course you are charting for the steroid page, via this change. I will respond further, but will be looking to see further chemistry and pharmacology comments. If they appear here, so much the better. But if they do not, I will move them here, in toto, so they accrue in one place. As you know, apart from your following me here, no one has been here in ages. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note however, as folks begin to review your simple request, that you do not fully reflect your aim and what was accomplished by your edit. In introducing the "is similar" language, you deviated from the explicit or implicit definitions/coverage of standard chemistry, biochemistry, and steroid IUPAC, IUBMB, NLM, and major natural product journal, and other accepted categorizations (e.g., including in the Dictionary of Steroids) that include ring cleaved, contracted, expanded and heteroatom-containing steroids as steroids, and not as being similar to them (just because they lack the 6-6-6-5 tetracyclic rings of most common steroids). That you desire this simplification is pedagogically understandable; they it defies the history of the field, and the preponderance of its sources (books, reviews, journals, major society guidances, etc.) is also clear. And that your simple edit could have huge ramifications if it were allowed to guide development of these two articles is also clear.

Hence, the issue is not in the desire for simplicity—and that was not your only aim—because if it were, I would not have reverted. The definition you offer changes direction of the article, and dependently, of the steroid article (as you have elsewhere argued). The notion that one of these definitions is "common", while the other is "technical", is also easily refuted, but at least this communicated bias makes clear the direction you wish both articles to evolve. Bottom line, your desire to redefine the direction of the articles involved, via alteration of the definition, is something you did not make clear in your request that I restore your edit. I leave it to the community to understand this, and to have their further word. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: I repeat, the proper place to have this discussion is here, not on the chemistry project talk page. After you acknowledged this request, you placed a very long post over there. I request that you move that post here.

I would also request that you stop trying to second guess other editors motives and to focus on the issue at hand. My first request is to simplify the opening sentence. My second request is to include both broad an narrow definitions of what a secosteroid is. The IUPAC definition (secosteroid as a subclass of steroids) was included in my edit. I cannot possibly see how my edit would then affect the scope of the steroid or any other article. Regardless, this article needs a simple introductory sentence. Boghog (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: As a compromise, I have modified the text to include a simple opening sentence that is consistent with the IUPAC definition and included the two alternative definitions in the third sentence. Boghog (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the argument about?

Is the debate is about whether secosteroids are a class of steroids vs being similar to steroids? That's all? Not being an expert in natural products but having seen the swkwardness that ensues with IUPAC, I would lean toward the more flexible usage from journals and handbooks that experts in the area consult. But surely the two clever editors above can finesse this minor conflict with some text in a footnote to satisfy nomenclaturists. Then we can get back to our main business - adding content.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added

... to make clear the basis for the original text of this lede, to which it was returned in the reversion. Added IUPAC, Dictionary of Steroids, and Hanson citations to make clear the basis for the original wording. NLM Mesh and other citations will follow on short order. Web definitions only satisfy if one is seeking to move forward a minority perspective on this matter. It is prooftexting to choose these to open the lede, and ignore the solid, stable, and very widely held conventions in this field (as reflected in IUPAC, NLM Mesh, Dictionary of Steroids, Nat Prod Reports, etc.). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says we can include all reliably sourced details, even ones in minority compared to more common/popular/formal origins, and conversely that excluding minority positions or alternatives solely because they are minority or from a less authoritative source is a form of editorial bias or non-neutrality. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not disagree, @User:DMacks, at all. But in the end, the Steroid article will ether develop, with or without coverage of these steroid topics, and that is the underlying question—not whether all variations of definition may be mentioned, but whether it will be the IUPAC/NLM Mesh definition, or web definitions, that guides content. Cheers, look forward to your further (always astute) comments. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]