Talk:Cheese crystals

Title

I couldn't find examples of the term "cheese crystal" in a Web search and a Google Books search. The Clark reference in the article uses the term once, but it and the other sources generally talk of "crystals in cheese" or "granules". The article's title should reflect general usage. --Macrakis (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that the subject simply does not have an established general name. Everybody essentially uses descriptive names (which is also common practice on Wikipedia, see e.g. WP:TITLE#Non judgmental descriptive titles). I also thought about crystals in cheese", but cheese crystals (1) has been used in reference 2, (2) "Cheese crystals" (plural!) gave actually quite a few Google and Google Books hits related to this topic, and (2) and is shorter, easier, and more intuitive than the alternatives. But crystals in cheese would be fine too. Cacycle (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Health concerns

It is important to explicitly address health concerns in the lead section. These concerns are obviously common food safety-related issues, e.g. see these government agency publications: [1], [2]. I just did not think that these documents contribute to the article itself. Cacycle (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The docs you cite seem useful to support the health issue. But since these crystals are "typical and valued characteristics" of the cheeses, the presumption is that they are safe, just like the rind of a Brie or the veins of a Roquefort. Why would anyone think there was a health problem? Maybe some mention in the middle of the article, but I don't understand the point of mentioning this in the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning was that concerned people will come to this page because of health concerns and that it would therefore be important enough to put in the lead section and to be explicit about it. Also, some derivative work of Wikipedia shows only the lead section of a topic. Cacycle (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the leads of potato and tomato, which are somewhat toxic in parts, and have a section on toxicity, don't mention toxicity in the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought more along the lines of cricket, dust devil, Tantilla and Mexican jumping bean... Actually, a shorter version such as "harmless" or "non-toxic" would be perfectly fine for me. Remember that some people might only see the lead section. Cacycle (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheese is a common food item (unlike crickets and Mexican jumping beans), and I'd think that the presumption would be that it and its components are non-toxic, especially when we characterize the cheese crystals as "characteristic", "common", and "valued". I'm not sure why you think that people would come to the page because of health concerns -- is there some rumor circulating? --Macrakis (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Even though some alternative medicine practitioners consider the Solanaceae (tomatoes/potatoes/eggplant ) to be toxic (not just the leaves etc.), we still don't mention toxicity in their leads. --Macrakis (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

An idiot bot keeps reverting my valid edit -- please re-add it if you can

Cheese crystals are safe to eat. That's all I added, and it's true. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:8CC0:BBC9:C28B:7889 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying that? If not then you will be reverted if you add it back because most information on Wikipedia requires secondary, reliable sources backing up the info. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Explicitly saying something is safe could be a big liability if you are wrong (think peanut allergies). Saying that it is normal and desired is probably good enough. Pqmos (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)