Talk:Turmeric
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Turmeric has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Turmeric is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images. |
The text
This particular page needs deleting, as the proper page is Tumeric. If your page links to this one, please edit the link to go to the proper page.
Thank you.
was placed on the main page. My spice jars say "turmeric," as does my dictionary (Merriam-Webster Unabridged), which has no entry under "tumeric." I'm redirecting "tumeric" to turmeric.
I've also taken the opportunity to flesh out the entry slightly. Vicki Rosenzweig
I agree. Google has
- 18,300 hits for 'tumeric'
- 104,000 hits for 'turmeric'
and the NODE has no entry for 'tumeric'. The Anome
Contents |
[edit] Alleged health/medical benefits
Turmeric's alleged anti-cancer properties got a mention in the Bad Science Awards... [1] Please review. Etz Haim 09:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That award may just be for that specific newspaper for their extrapolation. It may not say anything specifically about turmeric's true abilities. However, it does appear that no studies have been done on humans yet, so for now I guess the factual accuracy of the claims can be disputed. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 22:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Editing for clarity, neutral balance and accuracy is always better than labelling. Especially at an entry where one has not personally contributed a word. --Wetman 22:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- As I know nothing about this topic, it would be dumb of me to try to piece together the truth from my only source of information, the internet. I'll leave that to people who know what they're talking about. The apparently legitimate article linked by Etz Haim makes it seem like the statements in the article may be exaggerated, but, as I said, I'll leave that to someone who knows for sure. Until that person comes along, it would be nice not to commit to the current form, so I added TotallyDisputed. Get it? --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 23:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- Agree with the above. This is the reason why I have been so hesitant to edit the article myself. Etz Haim 23:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "Bad Science" award was given to a research company called "Daily Express", having nothing to do with Turmeric, rather the methodology used by Daily Express was flawed. Daily Express used only petree dishes and then extraploated the results would have the same effect in live humans, without doing the testing to actually prove it on live humans. It is Bad Scientific Method.--Stbalbach 06:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but are the statements in the turmeric article also the result of bad science? What is this Life Extension Foundation, which is the only source of information? According to The Miami Herald, a doctor that the LEF lists in their online directory of "innovative physicians" had his license suspended for "prescribing more than 32,000 doses of painkillers, sometimes seeing up to 80 patients a day. He faces trial next February in Sarasota, charged with possessing and prescribing painkillers for profit without federal approval." I know this isn't a direct link to the LEF, but it should encourage one to find out more information about them. Until their information is verified as truthful, or another more reputable source of information is provided, I don't see any reason for the article to be undisputed. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 06:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- You reverted all my edits with no explanation. Reverting back.--Stbalbach 09:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- The point is, the article could be made so that it is not in factual dispute and there would not need to be a tag. When you get in to the "prove it" game on somthing like health suppliments-- what's it going to take to prove the statements? FDA approval, a 10 year 100million dollar process? Even then, that can be disputed. Using the same argument, any herb on Wikipedia that makes a health claim should have a disputed tag on the top. I can point to enough articles to keep busy pasteing disputed tags for days. Rather, the correct way is, edit the article so that it is no longer in factual dispute. Use verbs and adjectives to make it clear who is making the claims, do no present claims as bare facts but "findings suggest", or "in chinese traditional medicine", or "one study found" and stuff like that. Provide context. The disputed tag is not needed unless editors can not agree on facts in the article. And if prior editors posted suspect facts without context or supporting evidence, then its certainly in anyones right to delete those facts from the article. The disputed tag is not the way to edit articles. --Stbalbach 10:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- What's it going to take to prove the statements? Some research that provides indications of turmeric's anti-cancer properties in vivo, as it is supposed to do. Etz Haim 10:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You may be right. It doesnt matter. The article can be written in a NPOV way. Adding a disputed tag just because it doesnt meet your standard of proof isn't the way Wikipedia works. If you dont like a fact, delete it from the article, or re-word it so its more acceptable. --Stbalbach 12:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Going by various statements I've found, I don't think information from the LEF can be trusted. Since any website can claim anything, it can't be used as a reference in an article, and the statements it claims should be removed.
-
- For a "non-profit organization", it sure does cost a lot to become a member ($1500 for a lifetime membership).
- They also have a book out, called "Disease Prevention and Treatment: Scientific Protocols that Integrate Mainstream and Alternative Medicines" which has sections on alternative cancer treatments as well as an "anti-FDA" section, apparently.
- One of their "doctors", Stephen Strum, wants to open an integrative health care center. His statements include: "We are planning a truly integrative approach that invokes physicians and other members of the health care team to use the concepts of mind, body, and spirit in a way that translates the medical advances published in the literature to the actual care of the patient... There will be a scientific basis to everything we do, including energy medicine, therapeutic touch, nutritional adjuncts, and even some Eastern disciplines." He and other "doctors" at LEF are proponents of the so-called "holistic" medicine.
-
- These and other catch-phrases, such as "mind-body-spirit", are indications that the LEF is bogus. I'm not saying that turmeric might not turn out to do what is currently claimed. I'm saying that the current reference used in the article is most likely from a bogus source. That's all. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 17:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Going by various statements I've found, I don't think information from the LEF can be trusted. Since any website can claim anything, it can't be used as a reference in an article, and the statements it claims should be removed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And we should check our sources, otherwise we might earn a Bad Science Award too. Etz Haim 18:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Unencyclopedic speculation cleanup needed
This article is full of notes to recent research and speculation. I have tried to organize it a little, but it needs more cleanup. I have also removed the link to Vicco Labs. Not only was the link broken, but they are not unique in the manufacture of turmeric-based cosmetics. -- WormRunner | Talk 16:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] removed references
-
- According to the abstract "Curcumin (Experiments 3 and 4) proved ineffective in reducing liver or plasma cholesterol pools". The text above is misleading in the extreme.
-
- The actual title and findings - "Resveratrol and curcumin reduce the respiratory burst of Chlamydia-primed THP-1 cells." The text given for the link above is misleading.
I think turmeric is a wonderful plant with many possible and actual benefits, but this is not the place to push an agenda, nor to interpret preliminary research. -- WormRunner | Talk 3 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
My mistake. The hypocholesterolemic effects was in rats.
--Wiserd 22:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Patented sometime in 1995
Apparently, there was a patent issued on the substance in the 90s. It may be helpful to put a link of the patent somewhere on the bottom of the article.
In 1995, the US Patent Office granted a patent on the wound-healing properties of turmeric. Indian scientists protested and fought a two-year-long legal battle to get the patent revoked. [2]
Hair Inhibitor?
I have a question regading the more cosmetic "benefits" of turmeric powder. I work with 3 Indian ladies who all claim that they used turmeric powder in combo with waxing for 1 year, and that now all the hair on their legs and arms has stopped growing. Apparantly they did this my making a paste with turmeric and yoghurt which they then applied to areas afflicted with hair. This is allegedly the preffered hair removal method for Hindu women. I am obviously skeptical about this claim.
1ST: What chemical properties does turmeric have that might cause hair retardation? 2ND: Won't the skin become discolored and irritated?
and 3rd: Does anyone have any substantial evidence or are is there any research done on this "miricle hair inhibitor" to show that it works?
Anyone with any information regading this myth (or not) please post it here.
Hiroko W.
[edit] Which part?
The article doesn't mention what part of the plant is actually used. I think it is the root which is ground, but someone should state this.
