Talk:Turmeric/Archive 1

Archive 1

old talk

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 —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 23 February 2002.

---

   While the preceding text appears in the edit history as a single contrib by one identified editor, this may reflect an early stage of WP with much more primitive record keeping, and (at least) one or two other contributors' prior participation on this talk page.
--Jerzy•t 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Super section of sections begun 25 February 2002 thru April 2007

(not quite so old talk, regarding orthography)

I agree. Google has

• 18,300 hits for 'tumeric'
• 104,000 hits for 'turmeric'

and the NODE has no entry for 'tumeric'. The Anome—Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 25 February 2002‎

The line right above the contents box uses the one-r spelling twice. I'll repair. Danchall (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the misspelling (dropping the "r") follows the trend to mispronounce it as well.Cal Fallon (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Turmeric

Turmeric's alleged anti-cancer properties, the ones mentioned in the article, also got a mention in the Bad Science Awards... [1] Please review. Etz Haim 09:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Added TotallyDisputed comment to the top. This definitely needs editing, by someone who knows what they're talking about. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 22:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alleged health/medical benefits

Turmeric's alleged anti-cancer properties got a mention in the Bad Science Awards... [2] 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)

Sorry about that. I was going by your edit comment, "remove dispute tag", and thought that's all you changed. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 14:20, 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)

And we should check our sources, otherwise we might earn a Bad Science Award too. Etz Haim 18:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)---Dont know about 'Bad Science Award'. A paste made from turmeric powder and hydrated lime is in common use in eastern India for painful joints and sprains. It reduces the inflamation and the pain. Debashis Ray <ray.debashis@gmail.com>

Some reliable references say that curcumin (the active ingredient) is not bioavailable. I.e., it passes from the gut to the blood only in tiny quantities, if it all. If this is true, then it could not be a valid treatment or remedy for anything. Other reliable references say that people who eat turmeric all their lives show slightly pink or orange brains on autopsy, which means it must be bioavailable. Some reliable sources say it tends to thin the blood and therefore must be used with caution. If that's true, it must be bioavailable. Many sources say that ingesting curcumin with black pepper (or its active ingredient) makes it more biovailable. It's possible that in actual use, turmeric is often combined with black pepper, but this is not really clear, as far as I know. Unless the bioavailablity isse is addressed adequately, the "medicinal uses" portion of this article amounts to medical legend and pointless babble.

68.127.229.103 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry is currently very much out of date. This is an area of very active current research. I have a scientific training from Yale University and Northwestern University, and I've spent about ten hours this week reviewing the literature. I am not an oncologist nor a microbiologist, but it is clear that lab studies of the anti-cancer effects of curcumin have been so promising, that there are numerous ongoing human clinical trials. Also, there already have been positive results with humans. It is an indicator of the promise of curcumin for health applications that several groups are developing delivery methods using nanotechnology, to overcome the aqueous solubility problems with curcumin. Thus, this sentence "According to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 'there is little reliable evidence to support the use of turmeric for any health condition because few clinical trials have been conducted.'" Is clearly or nearly out of date. I don't know much about updating Wikipedia articles, so I won't be doing it, myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.12.83 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

removed references

• [Curcumin reduces cholesterol in gerbils]

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.

• [Chlamydia, which is involved in the inflammation process of atherosclerosis, is inhibited by curcumin]

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)

Curcumin attenuates diet-induced hypercholesterolemia in rats.

Regulation effect of curcumin on blood lipids and antioxidation in hyperlipidemia rats

Dietary curcuminoids prevent high-fat diet-induced lipid accumulation in rat liver and epididymal adipose tissue.

Hypolipidemic action of curcumin, the active principle of turmeric (Curcuma longa) in streptozotocin induced diabetic rats.

My mistake. The hypocholesterolemic effects was in rats.

--Wiserd 22:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 December 2005

A very interesting read, thank you Sir! Definitely belongs to the article and probably also in many other articles too. --193.166.137.75 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

i'm a Hindu and as far as i know Turmeric powder is used naturally to remove hair from unneeded places of women (face, arms, legs); but i have no proof for the same though i'm pretty sure my mom did the same

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. (orginal entry)

(Comment) I believe the part that is used is the flower. Tumeric is a substitute for Saffron - Saffron is the flower. But I do not know for sure (I am not a herbalist or a botanist, only a dietitian/nutritionist/biochemist).

I am pretty sure its the root as all the cooking books I looked at say its the root.24.83.178.11 06:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

It is the root. It is a substitute for saffron, that doesn't mean it necessarily comes from the same part of the plant. - B In India the only part of the turmeric plant in regular use is the rhizome which is an underground stem, though it would be commonly called a root. Never seen the leaf or the flower being put to any use here. Saffron, called 'Zafran' in north India is produced from the flowers. Saffron has a fragrance and is used to color 'pilaf' and 'biryani' and many sweets. However the product is so expensive that most commercial products are colored with synthetic colors.59.93.193.224 06:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Debashis Ray <ray.debashis@gmail.com> 27 April 2007

Preparation for sale?

I noticed today that the conventionally grown bulk turmeric in our local supermarket is the same bright yellow as French's mustard, whereas the organic version was a metallic shade of orange. Does this mean that turmeric root is bleached or something during the non-organic preparation for sale? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauraA (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC). In West Bengal, India turmeric is available in three forms-powder,dried rizhome and fresh rizhome. Leaves or flowers are not used and are not available in the market. The powder and the dried root are used by most people and is a bright yellow color. The fresh rizhome is orange in colour, but turns yellow is a couple of days on the cut surface.The bleaching will take place even inside a refrigerator and is probably a result of oxidation.59.93.193.224 05:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Debashis Ray<ray.debashis@gmail.com>

Non-english names footnote

Does anyone else find the list of names of Turmeric in other languages kind of ridiculous? We do have Wikipedia in multiple languages linked too from the side of the article. There are more than a few thousand languages in the world, should we list them all? Seems kind of trivial and WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. -- Stbalbach 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC) I do not agree that the use of names in multiple languages is ridiculous.Many people who consult the Wikipedia know English only as a second language. They might not be sure of the English name turmeric, are unlikely to recognise the scientific name but might the description and picture familiar. They would confirm their suspicion by looking up the name in their mother tongue.This would be particularly applicable for all South Asians for whom the herb is a regular part of the diet.59.93.193.224 06:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Debashis Ray <ray.debashis@gmail.com>,27 April 2007

well i'd like to add that Turmeric is commonly known as pasupu in India also. can someone please add this as one of the links leading to this post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Turmeric Plant Habitat

I just got some turmeric root (rhizome?)from our local "organic grocery store". There is no info what so ever on the habitat of turmeric in this article. What kind of environment does this plant thrive in? I wanted to grow some from what I bought.24.83.178.11 06:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

I'm with you, pal. There should be more information posted about the plant. Imight do that. If you want to plant turmeric, you'll probably need to live in the tropics. In the US, it has only been planted in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, acc. to the USDA. Here is a page with useful information about the cultivation of Curcuma longa : http://www.chemlin.de/publications/documents/Turmeric_Cultivation_in_Sindh.htm NaySay 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been researching this with the hope that it can be grown in Sonoma County, CA zone 8b/9a and have read comments on "Square Foot Gardening" of it being grown indoors anywhere with sun, and outside (ground or pots) down to zone 7! As for the note that it requires a lot of water, a guy in San Diego claimed that he was hospitalized for 3 summer months with no watering assistance. When he finally came home the upper greenery was dead to the ground, but after a couple of weeks of restarting his watering regimen it came right back from the tubers. It's supposed to need a fair amount of sun, but will accept some afternoon shade. Also, you can look for knobs, and break a single tuber up to start several plants by setting them under a couple inches of soil with the knob pointing up. They take 8 to 10 months to mature, and if they flower it won't matter, since they are sterile anyway. The flower is supposed to be quite attractive. Also, cats especially like these plants, so keep them away or periodically break off a section for them to play with. Harvest when the upper plant dies back and replant from the harvest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisevil (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

( Super-section of sections begun August 2007 thru August 2008)-- Was "Super-section inserted, at least temporarily, as part of rescuing apparently whole commented out sections")

This line formerly began a long comment, concealing more than one talk section

this is not helping

This section was placed just after the earliest contributions to the page, years after their addition.
--Jerzy•t 09:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to know what turmeric tastes like and what foods it is good in. This info is boring. (Unsigned comment from 76.194.207.158 on 17:28, 8 August 2007)

I had the same question on taste. So I found my container and tasted some plain. It smells musty, and tastes a bit like chalk and a tiny bit like a clove smells. Basically, it's mildly flavored. Almost no after-taste, except a little earthy. If it helps, some recipes add it to cakes for the color, so it presumably doesn't change the flavor of anything that much. It's good in anything that should be colored yellow (like curry). Janet13 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Turmeric is a delightful seasoning, if combined with other seasonings, or added to certain foods, or both. By itself, it doesn't taste very interesting, and its smell is less than intoxicating. Its flavor and bouquet is unfamiliar to many westerners. Try adding it to yogurt, particularly whole-milk yogurt, maybe with a bit of salt and/or pepper. That's how you get a sense of what it tastes like.20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.229.103 (talk)

primarily a coloring agent?

re "In most recipes, Turmeric is primarily used as a coloring agent." This suggests that it could be omitted from most recipes with negligible change in taste. Is that really true? I'm skeptical. Leotohill (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased it. Leotohill (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantity?

What quantities would one consume to reap any possible medicinal benefits? Even an order of magnitude would be useful. 66.108.80.10 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen 3.6g curcumin extract as high effectivity for some studies, and complete safety up to 5 or 10g noted. Curcumin is only about 3% of whole dried turmeric, so with a bit of math . . .

3.6g c. X Tg t./.03g c.

        T  =  120g turmeric     or US ounces?  4.2oz! That seems like quite a lot, even if you like curry 
           

every day. But if you can grow or buy it fresh it's supposed to be something you can pickle and even chomp on raw, but remember that it decreases volume as it is dried for the ground spice, so you'll have to re-jigger the math. (I just had this weird connection as I typed the word "spice" taking me back Frank Herbert's space novel "Dune" and its wars over their all powerful "spice". I bet Herbert knew all about turmeric!) Elisevil (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

tumeric freshness

Other than expensive fresh root, is there a canned or frozen source. I'm concerned the powder is oxidized. I can get dried whole root. Yellow mustard may also be a jar-preserved source. 4.242.192.61 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC) jackbiles@hotmail.com

cosmetics section needs expanding

can someone expand the cosmetics section? (have tagged it) because it does not say how it removes hair or even how it is used to do so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(Another super-section, w/ sections begun Sep '08 to Jan '14 )

(Hopefully this insertion will also help sort out the matter of the multi-section commented-out discussion)

Turmeric and ants

Deleted the reference relating to turmeric and ants; it linked to a page on a gardening forum which did include several mentions of using turmeric to repel ants, however a forum is hardly a suitable place from which to gain a citation for an encyclopedia article. Leaving the claim there for now and adding citation needed tag as a quick search does show a lot of websites making the same claim; sadly none of these are really suitable sources for Wikipedia. I'd imagine that somebody who knows where to look would be able to find a decent source. 86.133.229.194 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On 5 February 2010, Team4Technologies added the ref http://www.oisat.org/downloads/AgroEcoAnts.doc for the statement that turmeric repels ants. As of 29 July 2011, the document at that link does not mention turmeric or any synonyms for it (curcuma, kunyit, etc), although it does discuss a number of other natural ant repellents (compost tea, molasses, citrus oil, seaweed, vinegar, marigold flowers, etc). The ref has been replaced with "Citation needed". Piperh (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Health effects

The article on MAOIs includes turmeric in list of MAOIs. Whether turmeric is an MAOI needs to be confirmed.

I've heard that turmeric is useful for things such as fighting certain central nervous system diseases, e.g., Parkinson's. Also the drug may be claimed to ward off alzheimer's. Dogru144 (talk) 06:44:07, :45:17,&:36 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to why this article is so skeptical about the benefits of turmeric for human health. A quick Google search reveals many health benefits, and the health benefits are also mentioned in a book called The Okina Way: How to Improve Your Health and Longevity Dramatically. Published by Penguin in June 2001. Vorbee (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC) This book is by Bradley J. Willcox, Makoto Suzuki and Craig D. Willcox. Vorbee (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The article reflect what reliable sources say, for health effects WP:MEDRS. If we're missing any please reveal them! That Penguin book is not reliable for such purposes. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I just ask why a paperback book which has plenty of citations in it is not considered a reliable source, whereas newspapers often are, as is evident from the number of citations to newspapers in Wikipedia? Newspapers do not often cite articles in refereed journals. Vorbee (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:WHYMEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusing info from the article and others....

due to the lack of registration numbers, such as CAS Registry Number etc

• http://www.laleva.cc/food/enumbers/E100-E110.html
• http://www.sulekhab2b.com/viewoffer/product/253444/e100-curcumin-turmeric-cas-no-458-37-7.htm

--222.67.219.51 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Infertility

Turmeric induces infertility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.218.253 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Over one billion people in India says that you do not know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcantu59 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No advertising on Wiki please

Unfortunately, I made an edit (18:34 18 Feb 2011) but didn't see where to add a comment, so here goes:

Removed ad for Nestle and Gerber. The info about food coloring is elsewhere. Because the actual informative content is repeated elsewhere (in a much more organized fashion, I might add), the removed line amounts to little more than marketing, which has no place in an encyclopedia.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankBaird (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 February 2011‎

   Good work, Frank, and thanks. What you said, even in just the second of the two 'graphs above your sig on this page, probably wouldn't have fit (w/o us'g cryptk abbrs). Me, i'd have used the "edit summary" box on the edit page, just below the box that included your markup, and said "Kill Nest & Gerb adz, in favor of ad-free color info" or maybe just "Nixed ads". (Your colleagues can clear up the details by clicking on the corresponding timestamp that gets generated next to your edit summary on the edit-history page (whether you remember to sign your edit or not). You may have been confused by the fact that the server uses the box to the right of

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes) |x|

to hold the name of the section you edited, but almost always there's adequate space left over, and the two related piece of info appear together on several system generated pages/screens, including the edit-history page for the article (or for the article's talk page, for talk page edit-summaries). It also displays the "diff[erence]" caused by your edit, for anyone who clicks the corresponding "View history" link, which usually is an imporant aid to understand your edit, summary or not.
--Jerzy•t 08:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Curcuma.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Curcuma.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 15 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Composition

I would request that the sentence about essential oils is deleted. It contains almost no useful information: most plant parts contain less than 5% lipids. Because this is a spice, it is rather elementary to expect that an oil extract of it would contain distinctive aromatic compounds, probably in large part smelling like turmeric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.100.153 (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Highest yield I could find was 3.14% from pure turmeric powder. Significantly less then what was mentioned on the article. I wouldn't be surprised if this experiment was aimed at looking at different qualities of turmeric powder, that one might show up with a yield closer to the 5% mentioned in the article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17044766 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.58.147 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed:Turmeric city

It's Erode that's called Turmeric city. Some external references to confirm the fact:
http://www.healthdiaries.com/eatthis/10-facts-about-turmeric.html
http://buffernews.com/5109/turmeric-herbal-plant
http://buffernews.com/5109/turmeric-herbal-plant
http://www.onefivenine.com/india/Travel/Place/Karnataka/Erode

It says so in the article Erode.
Gauravjuvekar (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of the word "turmeric"

Some one deleted my edit that the word "turmeric" comes from "Merit of the Earth" on the grounds that it was not sourced. Well, my source was the Penguin English Dictionary. I can put in the source when I have the full reference for this book and the appropriate page number. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have the appropriate source for the etymology of "turmeric" now, and now added it into the article. If any one thinks that putting it in the section "History" was not the most appropriate place to put it, just change it to a different part of the article, but as I have now added the source, please do not delete it as lacking a source citation again. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

   An author, title, date, and page citation is what constitutes a ref (corresponding Web link to the reliable source is always welcome but seldom necessary to prevent removal), but just mentioning the title in a footnote would have surely prevented this rapid-sounding removal. I didn't read that part of the article, but IMO you had already said enuf at 15:25 to prevent re-removal. Thanks for adding a minor, but worthwhile, contribution to the big picture that none of us can achieve alone.
--Jerzy•t 08:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

recent studies on turmeric / circumin referred to in these links

when time permits i will look up some of these studies, but anybody who's interested could also. there are a lot of them. this is not yet encyclopedic, so i will use the ref tags when i get to the studies. hope this is ok

http://newhope360.com/herbal/will-curcumin-research-scandal-crater-sales?page=2 and http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/turmeric-000277.htm

From my own experience, turmeric from a spice bottle is often dusty-tasting and flavorless (as someone above tasted). for health purposes freshness is essential. even umm says so!
suzeikew (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

   Ah, UMMC, g; Good work.
--Jerzy•t 08:25 & 10:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Turmeric has never been used for hair removal!

I am from India and the procedure mentioned here is just a skin cleansing method. It cannot remove or reduce hair. Turmeric, if applied on scalp can promote hair growth indirectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirvg (talk • contribs) 10:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Turmeric as a pH indicator

The colour changes from yellow to red in an alkaline solution - the transition occurs gradually, from pH 7.4 to 8.6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 3 September 2013‎

Turmeric and its role in cancer

Certain types of cancers are more prevalent in some countries than others but it is not clear why lifestyle and diet play a major role triggering cancer. We all know that micronutrients maintain health and prevent diseases. Thus,turmeric is a perfect example to illustrate those facts due to its powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Research has shown turmeric's molecular targets in regards to cancer and its effectiveness in regards to the modulation of transcription factors, cytokines, growth factors, kinases, and many other enzymes. Therefore, I would like to request more information related to Turmeric's anticarciogenic properties.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438350700105X http://link.springer.com/article/10.1208/s12248-009-9128-x http://cancerprevention.aacrjournals.org/content/3/8/953.full http://repository.ias.ac.in/5196/1/306.pdf http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jf803758x http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?issn=0022-3859;year=2003;volume=49;issue=3;spage=222;epage=228;aulast=Sinha http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/867/bok%253A978-0-387-46401-5.pdf?auth66=1392069126_874b81485ebc1ec756f7447a55e4632a&ext=.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaekcr (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Turmeric also is used to treat many other conditions. Inflammation or swelling is one of them. Its anti-inflammatory effects have been tested in animal and human models, giving as a result that Turmeric inhibits several molecules involved in inflammation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16008121 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19034830 http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555303321223035 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaekcr (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Iz it always boiled?

All of the Turmeric I've bought so far lacks the "hot, peppery" taste: It's bitter. All you need to do to prezerve it iz remove water. It'll keep until bugs get to it. If you boiled horseradish to prezerve it, then you would destroy most of the isothiocyanate flavours: You can't even use much heat heat. Bohgosity BumaskiL. 108.181.139.176 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over name of turmeric in medieval Europe

The line "In medieval Europe, turmeric became known as Indian saffron because it was widely used as an alternative to the far more expensive saffron spice.[14]" references a paper that does, indeed, state that turmeric is known as Indian saffron but the paper makes *no* claim regarding medieval Europe nor does it even mention Europe. While I cannot say, one way or the other what role or name turmeric had in medieval Europe this citation does not provide supporting evidence for the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.182.160.106 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Research

The following section is removed from the article to here as not WP:MEDRS. There is no acceptable evidence in human literature that turmeric or its constituents have any health benefits or anti-disease effect. A review of primary studies is not a MEDRS review. It is misleading and irresponsible to approve a statement that turmeric has "anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic, and anti-cancer benefits." --Zefr (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed text and source Curcumin, once thought to be the sole active ingredient in turmeric, turns out to be just one of many active ingredients in turmeric that offer health benefits. A review of studies focused on curcumin-free turmeric has shown many other compounds found in turmeric to offer anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic, and anti-cancer benefits. PMID 23847105

Agree looks iffy for claims of "benefits". Alexbrn (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Zefr, you say "A review of primary studies is not a MEDRS review". Let's take a look at Wikipedia policies, which we all must respect: "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies.(...) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources."

I restored this source PMID 23847105 used by Bmporter, which is a review (secondary source), published at Molecular Nutrition & Food Research (current Impact Factor: 4.551) that in fact fulfills WP:MEDRS. And you reverted it [3].

As I said, remember [4] and if you consider, you must adjust the text but not remove all saying that "is not a MEDRS review". It is the research section and is perfectly admissible here.

I will restore and adjust the text, but I invite you to check it. If you want the full paper, I can send it to you. For the moment, let's see the Conclusions section:

Curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities: Identification of novel components of turmeric. Conclusions

4 Conclusions All of these studies support the fact that besides curcumin, turmeric contains numerous other compounds that exhibit anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities. CFT also possesses anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities. It is also clear that some of these compounds exhibit activities that are distinct from curcumin, whereas other compounds’ activities are similar to those of curcumin. Some components of turmeric appear to be as potent as, or even more potent than, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Some components have been shown to act synergistically with curcumin by increasing uptake by the cells through modulation of P-glycoprotein. More than 60 different clinical trials of curcumin have been completed, and a few have also been done using turmeric. These clinical trials have unequivocally demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and nontoxicity of both curcumin and turmeric at gram dose levels. However, none of the clinical trials have been performed using turmeric components other than curcumin. Based on the depth of the preclinical data on turmerones, elemene, furanodiene, and germacrone, we believe that these noncurcumin components needs to be further evaluated first in preclinical setting before they can be tested in humans. Therefore, the future studies should be directed toward evaluating the clinical efficacy of noncurcumin components of turmeric.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Under WP:MEDREV, MEDRS states "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." I can summarize my objection to including this reference as 1) primary research having insufficient clinical weight to imply human effects (for which the general Wikipedia user is seeking information), 2) overall, weak human evidence per WP:MEDSCI, 3) low evidence and human relevance quality per WP:MEDASSESS, and 4) context of preliminary lab research for the general encyclopedia user per WP:MEDANIMAL, which justifies adding a statement to the revision you made to emphasize there is no adequate, current human evidence for anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer activities of turmeric or its constituents. I'll notify Alexbrn and Jytdog for additional review. --Zefr (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

with regard to the proposed content, Jesus Joseph and Mary. Just no. Holy wall of text batman no. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the upshot of the literature is that while it's being researched (which herb or dodgy supplement isn't?) there is no evidence that it has any useful medical application. I wouldn't object to the article saying something along those lines. Words like "anticancer" - in any context - ring very loud warning bells. WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The red flag issue rang this bell from my memory: the author of the review BallenaBlanca wants to use was shamed for data fabrication and forced to retire from the University of Houston and MD Anderson Cancer Center where he was a professor. I'm removing the content and reference all-together, as there seems to be no suitable substitute for claiming anti-inflammatory or anti-cancer mechanisms. There is a systematic review on skin effects, concluding there is insufficient human evidence. Will post a revision here for review. --Zefr (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Revision to consider concerning skin effects:

A systematic review of clinical trials on the use of ingested or topically-applied turmeric or curcumin for affecting skin conditions showed preliminary evidence that the compounds may provide therapeutic benefits. --Zefr (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

These further edits were the right approach [5] and [6]

But now the important thing is this, that Zefr has ascertained [7], so for this reason, I agree with this edit of Zefrs [8] removing the added content and the (secondary) source PMID 23847105.

Therefore, we must check and at least withdraw this reference in Curcumine 7. Goel, Ajay; Kunnumakkara, Ajaikumar B.; Aggarwal, Bharat B. (2008). "Curcumin as "Curecumin": From kitchen to clinic". Biochemical Pharmacology. 75 (4): 787–809. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2007.08.016. PMID 17900536. Do you agree?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that reference, its title especially, and the cherry-picked content are WP:PRIMARY and very misleading for the non-scientist encyclopedia user. Also note this. Please remove it. --Zefr (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the concerns raised around the author agree we should be very careful about using this review in Mol Nutr Food Res. Also extra ordinary claims like that of "anticancer" require extraordinary evidence. Expecially when it is also an "antiinflammatory" and inflammation is part of the biological mechanisms that deal with cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of the word "turmeric"

This article says that the word turmeric means "merited earth" but I have a dictionary which gives its etymology as "merit of the earth".Vorbee (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Its a genitive in latin - you can translate such constructions as "X of Y" or Y-adjectivized X" Whatever dictionary you have has flipped the genitive. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Taste?

The article doesn't seem to mention anything about what turmeric tastes like, which is bizarre given that it's a spice. Is it spicy? Sweet? Sour? What does it taste like? 164.107.124.165 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point. In the lede and culinary section, I described it as "warm, pungent, pepper-like" in flavor and "earthy, mustard-like" in aroma, using two refs. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding isolated compounds and turmeric

Please see my latest edit on the article, which has been reversed, which I would like to see approved. I believe that the line, "From clinical research, there is no high-quality evidence that turmeric has medicinal properties," is misleading and the cited source does not come to that conclusion. The researchers do not believe that turmeric has no beneficial effects on human health, nor did they test turmeric and their effects on health. Their research was *not on turmeric.* My edit tries to keep close to the information that the article states so that readers may better understand why curcumin is such a hotly discussed topic surrounding turmeric and maybe why it has not shown many, if any, beneficial effects. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.66.112 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Their paper explicitly mentions turmeric ("None of these studies have yet led to the approval of curcumin, curcuminoids, or turmeric as a therapeutic for any disease."). They call the whole field "much ado about nothing" so I'm confident we're aligned with the source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the entire quote: "With respect to curcumin/curcuminoids and in vivo studies and clinical trials, we believe there is rather 'much ado about nothing'." Their conclusin regards curcumin/curcuminoids, and that the entire feild of research regarding these isolated components is "much ado about nothing." They only mention turmeric in how it relates to curcumin/curcuminoids. The researchers go on to state that future research should focus on turmeric itself, instead of the isolated components. From their conclusions: "Considering the overwhelming evidence showing the weakness of isolated curcumin (almost always a mixture of curcuminoids) as a viable therapeutic, consideration of holistic approaches that take into account the chemical and PD/PK complexity of turmeric and its broad TxM/nutritional foundation appears to be superior directions for future research in the turmeric domain." 99.33.66.112 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And the text we have is "there is little high-quality clinical evidence for use of turmeric or its main constituent, curcumin, as a therapy", which is a good summary of our article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My goal with the edit is to further the separation of turmeric and its isolated component, to prevent confusion. My edit keeps the information there is little evidence for the components, but I remove "Turmeric from the sentence, as turmeric and its constituents are not analogous. The researchers themselves lament the unfortunate reductionist mindset: "In addition, there is increasing evidence that TxM agents cannot be adequately described with reductionist pharmacology models but require consideration of polypharmacology and synergy." 99.33.66.112 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't say they are analagous. We say there is no good evidence of therapeutic benefit for either turmeric or curcumin, which is a good summary of the sources used in the article. Omitting turmeric from the lede would leave out this key point. Alexbrn (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The way the article stands now, seems to indicate that clinical studies have been performed using turmeric, and were inconclusive, which is the only thing I want to avoid with this article. You can not conclude the efficacy of turmeric using isolated components or turmeric extract, which is made up of isolated components. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

But we cite such inconclusive research in our article, so the summary is apt. Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

All the summaries and information that were in the article previously are still there in my edit. They are only clarified, and reveals important information on the nature of curcumin and its relationship with turmeric, an important distinction that the researchers themselves note. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The current content is correct. the claim that tumeric has not been tested clinically is not accurate. For example the Nelson paper cites PMC 3580400 which was a phase 1 study of Curcumin C3 Complex, which is dried tumeric rhizomes, standardized for curcuminoid content per this - standardization of plant-derived material around something is necessary to do an actual scientific experiment Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

By deleting key information and adding stuff about "substantial interest" the POV of the article is skewed; if anything we should have much more here about thw widespread quackery in the turmeric supplement business. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there high-quality evidence showing the inability of turmeric itself to improve human health? Or does all the research that show ineffectiveness point to isolated turmeric components or turmeric supplements which contain isolated components? 99.33.66.112 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no high quality evidence showing it is effective for anything. Please do not abuse your editing privileges by writing rhetorical questions. You do not have, and you are very unlikely to gain, consensus for your edits, which were promotional. Please see WP:DROPTHESTICK Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

To respond to your first response Jytdog: That scientific article is on curcumin supplements, rather than turmeric. Curcumin is just one of hundreds of phytochemicals found in turmeric. On the other hand, there has been some research on the spice turmeric itself, rather than curcumin, on Alzheimer's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.66.112 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That's ayurveda nonsense, in a fringe journal. No thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And alright, Jytdog. I just felt the responsibility to make a case, as I feel painting turmeric in the same light as research on its isolated components is irresponsible. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I agree that it is not strong evidence. All three cases could just be a fluke. I feel the information gleamed is that there may a difference between turmeric, and its extracted components. According to this review: "...it is emphasized in this review that each component of the curcuminoid mixture plays a distinct role in making curcuminoid mixture useful in AD, and hence, the curcuminoid mixture represents turmeric in its medicinal value better than curcumin alone," and it also contains a long list of components of turmeric that have been isolated for research. It concludes that the sum may be greater than its parts. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jumping in since I've been personally curious on Turmeric / Curcumin and I pulled some of the info organized from this site from its references. Below are ones that I found with a verifiable impact rating to compare sourced from a csv export from here. Per some Excel magic, it looks like there are a handful of reputable journals that have some *some* research on the topic:

• Yekollu SK, Thomas R, O'Sullivan B Targeting curcusomes to inflammatory dendritic cells inhibits NF-κB and improves insulin resistance in obese mice. Diabetes 2011 4.717
• Wang Z, et al Notch-1 down-regulation by curcumin is associated with the inhibition of cell growth and the induction of apoptosis in pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer 2006 2.973
• Weisberg SP, Leibel R, Tortoriello DV Dietary curcumin significantly improves obesity-associated inflammation and diabetes in mouse models of diabesity. Endocrinology 2008 2.178
• Sharma S, et al Dietary curcumin supplementation counteracts reduction in levels of molecules involved in energy homeostasis after brain trauma. Neuroscience 2009 1.685
• Wu A, Ying Z, Gomez-Pinilla F Docosahexaenoic acid dietary supplementation enhances the effects of exercise on synaptic plasticity and cognition. Neuroscience 2008 1.685
• Murakami A, et al Curcumin combined with turmerones, essential oil components of turmeric, abolishes inflammation-associated mouse colon carcinogenesis. Biofactors 2013 1.341

Shaded0 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me just add to that list of research with a few clinical trials on the effects of curcumin on human diabetes and endothelial function:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22773702
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22930403
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146777
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22421908

99.33.66.112 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The list by Shaded0 is all primary lab research, much of it outdated, which is unencyclopedic for a medical topic per WP:MEDANIMAL. The list by the IP user contains preliminary human studies, some in weak journals, that do not comply with WP:MEDASSESS. We construct an article on the best established facts, not preliminary exploratory studies. This is the only perspective needed for the article's discussion of why curcumin is unlikely to yield basic information in vivo and why it is of no use to study curcumin clinically. --Zefr (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

May we include the information from that perspective study into the Research section? My last edit, all claims, were from that perspective. Maybe we can add something like, "A perspective on the clinical research on extracted curcumin has shown curcumin to be a poor drug for use in clinical research." Anyways, thank you all for your time. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do with the edit is to offer insight to readers of what the perspective study said. Let's be honest, the way the article stands, it's misleading. Ask most people to read the article now, and they will walk away thinking that turmeric has no nutritional benefits, while no study suggests that. The Research section on beta-carotene thankfully specifies supplementation use in studies, and does not discount beta-carotene when consumed in food. We would not mention that sweet potatoes for example, have no strong studies backing them their disease-prevention properties. Epidemiological studies show that sweet potatoes are correlated with longevity, and it's the same with turmeric. There have been thousands upon thousands of studies on turmeric, which is why there is great interest in developing a drug from isolated components. We would not suggest that the beta-carotene when eaten in sweet potatoes may not be health-promoting because studies on isolated beta-carotene haven't shown much positive results. The lines, "Turmeric or its principal constituent, curcumin, has been studied" and "From clinical research, there is no high-quality evidence that turmeric has medicinal properties," does suggest that the studies were performed on turmeric themselves, which is inaccurate. Let's not tip-toe around this. These lines are misleading. My edit, which can be found here, is clearer, offers insight, and less prone to confusion about what the studies cited involved. Please take this into consideration. In no way does the edit show turmeric in a positive light, it also does not paint it in a negative one either. Let's not let the article suggest a dismissal of turmeric until proven otherwise. Thanks. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself without engaging with what others have said. I think this discussion is now at a natural end. Alexbrn (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright. One criticism says my edit is promotional. I do not see how my edits are promotional as they remain neutral to whether turmeric is healthful or not. Another criticism is that I've deleted an important and established cited fact, the line "From clinical research, there is no high-quality evidence that turmeric has medicinal properties." The cited study says, "None of these studies [on curcumin] have yet led to the approval of curcumin, curcuminoids, or turmeric as a therapeutic for any disease." In my edit, I replace that line with the new, "Clinical research on the turmeric's constituent curcumin, which makes up to 5% of turmeric, has yet to lead to the approval of curcumin, curcuminoids, or turmeric as a treatment for disease, and has lead pharmaceutical researchers to state that curcumin is a poor drug candidate in human trials," which still includes the intended information and then some. Another criticism is that my mentioning of substantial interest in the therapeutic use of turmeric, which is also based on information in the perspective study: "Curcumin is a constituent (up to ∼5%) of the traditional medicine known as turmeric. Interest in the therapeutic use of turmeric and the relative ease of isolation of curcuminoids has led to their extensive investigation," which is in the Abstract section. Why shouldn't this relevant information be included in the article? And still no word on whether or not my suggested, "A perspective on the clinical research on extracted curcumin has shown curcumin to be a poor drug for use in clinical research," should be included, which is relevant if we're going to talk about the clinical research on curcumin. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Turmeric and uses to reduce h. pylori load, treat ulcers and disrupt other bacterial membranes.

Turmeric has been a focus of anti h. pylori activity since at least 2002 (before Wikipedia's inception) and it's surprisingly not discussed in this article. The sources[9][10] that are used to show that turmeric is overhyped as a cure-all do not discredit the narrow scope of anti-ulcerative/anti-bacterial studies. This list is not complete but contains an hour worth of searching:

• 2002- These data demonstrate that curcumin inhibits the growth of H. pylori cagA+ strains in vitro, and this may be one of the mechanisms by which curcumin exerts its chemopreventative effects.[11]
• 2005- Among the plants that killed H pylori, turmeric was the most efficient, followed by cumin, ginger, chilli, borage, black caraway, oregano and liquorice. Moreover, extracts of turmeric, borage and parsley were able to inhibit the adhesion of H pylori strains to the stomach sections. [12]
• 2007- Curcumin is the principal element of turmeric powder extracted from the root of Curcuma longa. Studies on curcumin have demonstrated some anti-Helicobacter pylori activity as well as immunomodulating properties. N-acetylcysteine and lactoferrin with their respective mucolytic and antibacterial activities might also be effective in H. pylori eradication therapy. [13]
• 2009- Treatment failure is a major cause of concern for the Helicobacter pylori-related gastroduodenal diseases like gastritis, peptic ulcer, and gastric cancer. Curcumin, diferuloylmethane from turmeric, has recently been shown to arrest H. pylori growth. [14]
• 2016 - Its effects on Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection have been repeatedly confirmed both in animal and human models. This study directly compared five different samples to evaluate if the effects are general or if they differ among samples. [15]
• 2016- This is the first review with this heading where we discussed regarding the role of curcumin as an anti-H. pylori agent along with its potential in other gastrointestinal diseases. Based on several in vitro, early cell culture, animal research and few pre-clinical trials, curcumin projected as a potential therapeutic candidate against H. pylori mediated gastric pathogenesis. This review sheds light on the anti-H. pylori effects of curcumin in different models with meticulous emphasis on its anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-carcinogenic effects as well as some critical signaling and effecter molecules. Remarkably, non-toxic molecule curcumin fulfills the characteristics for an ideal chemopreventive agent against H. pylori mediated gastric carcinogenesis but the foremost challenge is to obtain the optimum therapeutic levels of curcumin, due to its low solubility and poor bioavailability.[16]

Related studies:

• 2013 (summary of turmeric as an antiulcerative treatment) It can, therefore, be reported from the literature that curcumin Prevents gastrointestinal-induced ulcer and can be recommended as a novel drug for ulcer treatment. [17]
• 2014 (general overview study on turmeric as a treatment) Our results will help patients and healthcare practitioners to make informed decisions when considering turmeric as an alternative therapy for digestive disorders. [18]
• 2015- (other bacteria membranes) The present study focused on the antibacterial activity of curcumin I, a significant component of commercial curcumin, against four genera of bacteria, including those that are Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). [19]
• 2015- (Dietary Amelioration of Helicobacter Infection) Extracts of cinnamon [56,87], rosemary, turmeric, fingerroot, nutmeg, ginger, [133] and licorice [23], all inhibit H. pylori growth in vitro, as does mastic gum On the other hand, anti-inflammatory activity has been reported with ginger, turmeric, licorice [131,132], and nutmeg [133] [20]

There are more sources to sift through (sources mining within these overview sources) but this is plenty to form a new section in the article with a narrow scope of turmerics uses to reduce h. pylori load and treat ulcers. Alatari (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please make a point. These are high quality primary and secondary sources and your objection to them is completely unclear. Your suggestion to read an article I've read many times before is unnecessary.Alatari (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you please propose specific content and sourcing for it, that you would like to add? thx Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The source inserted into the article[21] in the lead acknowledges there is some limited evidence that turmeric is a gastro anti-biotic Circumventing the requirement for systemic circulation, curcumin might provide benefit by acting on gut microbiota. Thus far, there is limited evidence to support this hypothesis,. That current source doesn't contradict or exclude the scope of turmeric's action on h pylori but criticizes the potential on low bioavailability and targeting problems.

Add something to the article along the lines of:

Turmeric has been studied for it's antibacterial functionality, especially against h. pylori. There are limited in-vitro , animal and human studies showing a reduction or elimination of this gut bacteria with turmeric.

Both the 2016 sources refer to prior studies of in-vitro, animal and human [22] (infection have been repeatedly confirmed both in animal and human models.) and [23] Based on several in vitro, early cell culture, animal research and few pre-clinical trials, curcumin projected as a potential therapeutic candidate against H. pylori mediated gastric pathogenesis Alatari (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What sources are you proposing exactly for that quoted content? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alatari: If you've read WP:MEDRS why are you bringing a boatload of unreliable sources here? PMID 26973412 looks kind of okay, except basic grammar errors and highfalutin claims in the text do not encourage confidence - this might be used to support some text like "Although curcumin has been studied for its potential as a treatment for H. pylori infection, there is no good evidence of its worth for this purpose". And that would belong in our curcumin article, not here. Alexbrn (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Curcuma longa roots.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Curcuma longa roots.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 25, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-03-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Turmeric (Curcuma longa) is a rhizomatous herbaceous perennial plant of the ginger family. Plants are gathered annually for their rhizomes, which when not used fresh are boiled in water, dried, and ground into a deep-orange-yellow powder. Turmeric is commonly used as a coloring and flavoring agent in many Asian cuisines, especially for curries.Photograph: Simon A. Eugster

Does Turmeric grow wild or not?

I am confused by the article. There are two apparently contradictory sentences: - History and Distribution: "Not found in the wild, turmeric is cultivated in Southeast Asia, Oceania, and some countries of western Africa.[1]" - Uses: "Turmeric grows wild in the forests of South and Southeast Asia where it is collected for use in Indian traditional medicine (also called Siddha or Ayurveda).[7]" . Perhaps this only needs clarification. I know nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cab.jones (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Turmeric/Regarding Turmeric and the Medical Efficacy of the Same

I recently modified the page by supplying several peer reviewed National Institute of Health referenced citations, all of which you removed not even giving the reader a fair chance to come to their own conclusions by following the supplied research. I cited the following respected journals; Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, Journal of Medicinal Food, Phytotherapy Research, Neural Regeneration Research, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, International Immunopharmacology, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, and Phytomedicine. I am wondering if you have a medical degree or are a nutritionist? And further am concerned you are not following the Wikipedia guidelines for appropriate administrative actions by deleting my well supported additions and modifications. Please respond by pointing out how my citations and references are not supported by valid research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimzoltan (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Turmeric Spelling

Although it is underrepresented in dictionaries, a variant spelling is certainly "tumeric". This can be verified here, here, here, etc. Not everything that is different is wrong. Wolfdog (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that in your third link, the spelling is tumeric in the headline, but it is written as turmeric throughout the article. The discrepancy is odd - a spelling mistake by the headline writer perhaps? Regarding the Merriam-Webster link, tumeric isn't suggested as an alternate spelling in the main definition at the top of the page (although the corresponding pronunciation variants are listed); you have to scroll down to the 'More definitions' section to find it. Do you know where the 'more definitions' bit comes from? I'm guessing that the main result (without the alternate spelling) is their own definition, and the other section presents definitions from other open-access sources, but that's just guesswork - I looked at the Help menu on the site, but couldn't see anything to explain the difference. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the heading "Medical Definition", we can reasonably infer that the source is the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary. M-W tends to be pretty descriptive as far as dictionaries go, so the fact that the variant spelling has yet to make it into the main dictionary is pretty indicative of its marginality. Ibadibam (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that - hadn't realised they also had a medical dictionary, but that makes sense. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, good catch with the third source I used. Sorry, I was just doing a quick skim of sources. Let's say I had brought up this one, this one, or this one, haha. Wolfdog (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Turmeric Pronunciation

@Kbb2: it seems we are in disagreement on the pronunciation for Turmeric. We are now in agreement on the first two, but can you please explain the issue with the third variant, ˈ|tʃ|u:|m|ər|ɪ|k.

Referring specifically to the text you linked to: In dialects with yod dropping, /j/ in /juː/ or /jʊər/ is not pronounced after coronal consonants (/t/, /d/, /s/, /z/, /n/, /θ/, and /l/) in the same syllable, so that dew /djuː/ is pronounced the same as do /duː/. In dialects with yod coalescence, /tj/ and /dj/ mostly merge with /tʃ/ and /dʒ/, so that the first syllable in Tuesday is pronounced the same as choose. In some dialects /sj/ and /zj/ are also affected and frequently merge with /ʃ/ and /ʒ/.

This appears to support my own versions, distinguishing as it does between "yod dropping" (too-mer-ic) and "yod coalescence" (choo-mer-ic).

I appreciate that I had an error in my original version (which were basically two different representations of "tu-mer-ic") but I have since corrected this to properly represent the "choo-mer-ic" option and I don't understand why this is not correct. Your input would be appreciated.

And apologies if I am using the Talk page incorrectly - I have never had to use one before.

Thanks. Foodtraveller (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The talk page for an article is absolutely the correct venue for disputes about its content. And much better than continuing to edit the page against consensus. Thanks for posting your issue here. Ibadibam (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ibadibam. Can I ask why you felt the point about dissimilation was unsourced and unlikely to be true? From a sourcing perspective, I had linked to the "dissimilation" page. The pronunciation variant where the first "r" is not pronounced was (and currently is) included in the IPA pronunciation guides given on the page. These, in turn, were sourced from Merriam-Webster. Which element is, therefore, unsourced and unlikely to be true? I am happy to amend "many people" to "some people" if this is the issue, but the important thing from my perspective is to explain why the first "r" is dropped in some instances. I think this is interesting information and helps explain why so many people (per Google search results) misspell the word. Thanks again, Foodtraveller (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Foodtraveller First off, we never use other Wikipedia pages as sources - that's from WP:RS, and it's adhered to rigidly. You can link to dissimilation if you want to give the reader a chance to find out what dissimilation is, but you can't use it to support an assertion. You would need a source explicitly saying that dissimilation is the reason for alternate pronunciations - joining the dots yourself is WP:OR. Also, both 'many people' and 'some people' would be WP:Weasel, unless they were used by the source. We can't speculate (even if you think it is stating the obvious) about the various different pronunciations and spellings - all we can do is reflect what reliable sources have to say about it. If there aren't any sources discussing it, then we have nothing to say. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

GirthSummit Thanks for all that. This is all new to me, so good information. The pronunciation variants themselves are in the source I cited (Merriam-Webster). (While the correct representation of these variants using IPA is currently being debated, as above, the existence of the variants is not.) I was trying to add an explanation, which I copied almost verbatim from February, which is similarly sourced. In that instance, Merriam-Webster itself includes the explanation of dissimilation. I can provide a link to a detailed explanation of dissimilation such as this, but I am unlikely to find a source document that lists all words that can be affected by dissimilation. The closest example I can think of is February, which also has two "r"s close together. So how about something like this (accepting, for now, the IPA versions as currently in the article):

Tumeric can be pronounced /ˈtɜːrmərɪk/ or variously /ˈtjuːmərɪk/. The variant /ˈtjuːmərɪk/ is the result of a linguistic process known as dissimilation, whereby one sound becomes different from a neighbouring sound within a word for ease of pronunciation, similar to what happens with the word February.

This version contains no reference to how many people might use this variant, but rather just explains how the variant exists. It also helps explain the spelling variant discussed below. As such, I think this is a useful addition to the article. This addition could be added to the existing "note" or moved to a Prounuciation section, like I had added previously. I have no preference. Foodtraveller (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Foodtraveller I appreciate that you were trying to add an explanation, but we cannot do that without sourcing. With February, the Merriam-Webster entry specifically mentions dissimilation, so the assertions there are sourced; that's not the case for turmeric. The Britannica article you linked to on dissimilation doesn't mention turmeric, and the Merriam-Webster entry for turmeric doesn't mention dissimilation - we can't join the dots between these two subjects ourselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GirthSummit . I had added two further references since my initial response, one of which does "join the dots", but I'm not sure if it's a strong enough source. If it isn't, I think I'll hang up my hat! (I have moved those two references below for ease of reading.)

This paper specifically mentions turmeric in relation to dissimilation. It is a university paper, but the paper itself includes citations. Would this be better as a source?

I also found this, which lists several examples of dissimilation in words with two "r"s in close proximity.Foodtraveller (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Foodtraveller (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Foodtraveller the first link comes up with a 404 File not found error - can you check the URL you linked? When you say a university paper, do you mean a paper written by a student? That wouldn't meet WP:RS, although if as you say it has citations then it's likely one of the references it provides could be used. The second one doesn't help us, since it doesn't mention turmeric. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the link again. For some reason, it doesn't work when enclosed in square brackets. http://web.csulb.edu/~nhall2/dissimilation_draft.pdf

It does appear to be a student paper, which is why I reckoned it wouldn't be strong enough as a reference. I checked her source book (available on Google eBooks) and could find no reference to turmeric. It's a pity, because it's a standard rule of phonetics and applies to many, many words. With the pronunciation of turmeric being so contentious (there are lots of articles about it online), I would love to be able to add an explanation. But as I can't find a source that "joins the dots", I think I'll just have to knock it on the head. Thanks for your time and patience in responding. Foodtraveller (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem - I think you're right, we'll have to leave it. Wikipedia isn't the place to generate new knowledge or explanations, we just echo other (reliable) sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This sounds more like spelling pronunciation than mere dissimilation to me . If turmeric was affected in a similar way to words like February and particular, wouldn't we expect something like /ˈtʌmərɪk/ rather than /ˈtjuːmərɪk/? In fact, a more recent version of the unpublished paper you linked to by Hall notes, "it appears that the spelling has influenced the dissimilated pronunciations". So there. Nardog (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Nardog "So there"? Ah, come on. It's just a discussion.

Regarding whether or not the pronunciation is a result of dissimillation, this example (turmeric) is very similar to February, which can be pronounced "Feb-roo-ary" or "Feb-you-ary" - so the initial "r" has not only been dropped, but dropping the "r" has altered the pronunciation of the letter "u" which is in direct proximity to the dropped "r". (Otherwise it would be "Feb-oo-ary", which is not an accepted variant.) Applying the same logic to turmeric, you get "Tur-mer-ic" with the "r", and "Too-mer-ic" or "Tyou-mer-ic" without the "r", depending on dialect. I appreciate that the the u and r are in a different sequence in "turmeric", but if dissimilation is accepted as being the reason for the variant pronunciation "Feb-you-ary" (which is cited back to Merriam-Webster), then I don't see why it can't also be an explanation for "too-mer-ic"/"tyou-mer-ic".

Regarding the updated paper, as already discussed above and below, that paper is uncited and therefore can't be considered reliable. Foodtraveller (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant by "So there" not "therefore your argument is incorrect" or anything but just "even the author of the paper you linked to admits it's not mere dissimilation but influenced by spelling". I think the paper is pretty citable. See below.

By the way, don't add empty lines between indented comments. See MOS:LISTGAP for why. Nardog (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Regarding the document - I might be reading the extract differently. The full text is "In peripheral, turmeric, and barbiturate, it appears that the spelling has influenced the dissimilated pronunciations ([p@rIfi@l, tum@~Ik, bArbItSu@t]): the words are pronounced as if spelled peripheal, tumeric, and barbituate. This may relate to the fact that replacing the /@~/s in peripheral or barbiturate with /@/ would result in a [@V] sequence that is phonotactically illegal. That is, without the spelling-influenced vowel changes, the process would not be structure-preserving." My reading of this is that the spelling if "turmeric" has influenced the post-dissimilation pronunciation /ˈtjuːmərɪk/, and not /ˈtʌmərɪk/ as might be expected by simply dropping the "r". To my mind, this does nothing to detract from my view that dissimilation is the reason (and only reason) the word can also be pronounced as if it were spelled "tumeric" - it only adds explanation of why the *result* of that dissimilation is /ˈtjuːmərɪk/ rather than /ˈtʌmərɪk/. It is not uncommon for the pronunciation not to match exactly with simply the original word minus the dropped letter, as in the case of February (which becomes Feb-you-ary and not Feb-oo-ary). I would be happy to add mention of this to the explanation, should we decide one should be added to the article. I see there is still debate below as to whether or not the document is citeable. I'll bow to those with greater knowledge of WP rules on that one. I think it's certainly citeable if we're adding a "possible" rather than "definitive" explanation of why the word can be pronounced as if it were spelled "turmeric".

Apologies for the gaps - they were really just for me as I kept getting lost in the text. I thought they'd be removed automatically when publishing. Know for next time.Foodtraveller (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Foodtraveller:I think we're rather on the same page, then. Instead of your wording I would phrase it as something to the effect of "dissimilation is the reason turmeric is pronounced *differently* from /ˈtɜːrmərɪk/, but spelling is the reason the dissimilated pronunciation diverges from /ˈtʌmərɪk/ as expected." But that's just verbiage, tomato tomato.

No worries, but now you inserted your comment in between paragraphs of my comment, and as a result the first paragraph of my comment looked like a separate, unsigned comment. Whenever you want to indicate which part of the other's comment you're referring to, you can quote it (a lot of people use {{tq}} to do it), or you can just clarify it using your words—which you did. Nardog (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to include the paper as a source. It doesn't provide a definitive opinion, but it's nevertheless a solid theory supported by independent research. Our article could certainly say that the pronunciation may be the result of dissimilation, and not take a firmer stand than that. Ibadibam (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about using the article as a source (see new comments below), but I like the possibility of including a "possible" rather than "definitive" explanation in the article. Foodtraveller (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The first time you put in the link there's an extra slash at the end (.pdf/). That's why the link returned a 404. Ibadibam (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - good to know. Foodtraveller (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "unlikely to be correct", that referred to your sentence that said that /r/ is pronounced as [j], which isn't supported by any source you or anyone else has provided. The [j]-insertion may occur in some dialects as an indirect result of the elision of /r/, but it isn't itself an alternative pronunciation of the /r/ phoneme. Ibadibam (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ibadibam Yes, I see your point. That sentence was taken verbatim from the article on "February", which is cited back to Merriam-Webster. I guess the difference is that with February, *everyone* who drops the initial "r" pronounces it "Feb-you-ary" (I've never heard anyone say "Feb-oo-ary", nor is this listed in MW as a variant), whereas with "turmeric", it can become either "too-mer-ic" or "tyou-mer-ic" when the initial "r" is dropped, depending on dialect. I still think the dropping of the initial "r" is a result of dissimilation, but I agree that saying the "r" becomes "j" is not correct for all dialects. If dissimilation were to be added to the article as a possible explanation for the pronuncation variants, it would need to be remworded. Foodtraveller (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the paper now, and I am sure that it can not be used as a source. First, as far as I can tell it's a student's paper that hasn't been published - no peer review, and we don't even know if it got a decent mark. Then, look at the source for the inclusion of turmeric in the paper - the 'BarelyBad' website, an 'amateur linguist's' blog. So, it's a poorly sourced student paper. This is not a reliable source. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, having looked at it further, I agree. Foodtraveller (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The author is an associate professor with PhD in linguistics,[24] and the paper (the more recent version) has been cited by others.[25] I'm pretty sure it qualifies as a reliable self-published source. Nardog (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Kudos for finding that - I searched and drew a blank, my bad. I retract (and have struck) my previous suggestions that this is a student paper, and I feel that I should apologise in case Dr Hall ever reads this thread. Still - even in this updated article, turmeric gets just a passing mention, and it's still referenced to the same amateur linguist's blog. Of the two citations that Google scholar throws up, one is a 'File not found', and the other does not mention turmeric. Given that, I still don't think that this is a reliable source for an assertion about the pronunciation of the word. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already included a comment above, but the discussion is getting long, so in case it gets lost in the wash: I see there is still debate as to whether or not the document is citeable. I'll bow to those with greater knowledge of WP rules on that one. I think it's certainly citeable if we're adding a "possible" rather than "definitive" explanation of why the word can be pronounced as if it were spelled "turmeric".Foodtraveller (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I still think it's citable. If an academic with PhD in linguistics isn't "an established expert" on the pronunciation of a word, who is? Also notice, in addition to the blog, it's referenced to the well-known linguist Bert Vaux, formerly at Harvard and now at Cambridge.

In any case, have we found any other (possibly) reliable source that identifies the alternate pronunciation of turmeric as a case of dissimilation/spelling pronunciation? I'm indifferent as to whether we should add information about the alternate pronunciation being affected by dissmilation/spelling to the article, but if Hall's paper is the only source we've found and we deem it fails to qualify as an RS, then we shouldn't add the information at all. Nardog (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Evidence for anti-tumor effect of curcumin is unconvincing and unencyclopedic

This edit by Shashank Reddy.P was reverted twice because it is based on primary research, which by WP:MEDREV, is inappropriate to imply that curcumin has anti-tumor activity. I added notes from WP:NOTJOURNAL on Reddy's talk page. Such an effect is not clearly shown by high-quality clinical research discussed in a systematic review or meta-analysis of completed clinical trials. As stated in the Curcumin article: "Curcumin has no confirmed medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research. It is difficult to study because it is both unstable and not bioavailable. It is unlikely to produce useful leads for drug development." supported in part by this review. --Zefr (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Cellular mechanisms of curcumin on oxidative liver diseases

Interesting systematic review on cellular mechanisms of curcumin for various oxidative liver disorders, however review is of a mixture of human and animal trials and clinical relevance is not consistently discussed. However if future evidence shows clinically relevant results this paper may be useful for explaining cellular mechanisms. XVDC (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Medical research section

Turmeric and medical research section. This is a big topic. It would add clarity and help readers if this was a whole new topic with sepate high-level headings. Would this idea meet with approval? Garboard Strake (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the sources. Have you read WP:MEDRS? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the only way this is commented on in reliable sources is to note the field is famous for research fraud. Basically, this is a supplement scam and there is no good evidence despite the mass of fake "research" the companies churn out. Alexbrn (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of material citing references from credible, peer review journals

I'm not sure why, but my edits citing peer reviewed journals such as those published by the British Journal of Medicine keep getting reverted without any adequate explanation by what appears to be a tag team of two editors, who seem suggest that this is their article and that I have no right to edit it, without their "consensus" (ie., permission). This is not consensus. The article on turmeric involves some scientific controversy. It is not a neutral point of view to just deny numerous sources complying with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and to instead push a one-sided view that there is "no evidence" that turmeric has any medicinal benefits. This is contradicted by various sources, including the NCCIH already cited, but mischaracterized. Also, why was the cited mention of large corporations attempting to take out patents on turmeric just reverted? Is the fact that most of my deleted citations were written by persons of South Asian origin an example of systemic bias in Wikipedia? Dcattell (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This phrase you're quoting, "no evidence" – where's that from? In general, see WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL to get a feel for how this topic is to be treated on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

::You seem to be using WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL as bully words here, exacerbated by an attitude of condescension. I know what these terms mean and the policy guidelines to which they refer (do you?) I have also been aware of them for quite sometime, and strongly disagree that they are some magic words that should be generally invoked to avoid an actual discussion based on the actual merit of edits. How do you get to assume that viewpoints that you do not care for are Fringe and Expceptional (Fringe and Exceptional do not automatically apply here, you are only alleging some hypothetical case which you lack evidence for the existence of); and, especially if you wish to invoke MEDRES (which does apply), then you should be prepared for a specific discussion, and not just to see how far a specious claim will get you? Maybe you would care to be specific, rather than throwing blanket accusations against the wall in the hopes that something will stick? Do you have anything to back up a claim that my edits violated or would violate guideline in the case of edits to the "Turmeric" article (edits speciously deleted but in the article history)? An example? I have seen nothing to merit preventing my improvement of the article in the case of specific reference citation which I used, or the use that I made of them or of the previously existing cited references: all I see is someone invoking a policy and saying "I just I want to delete your edits or other NPOV edits: but I should only have to mention the magic name and say "I believe", and not have to bother with any sort of evidence that it actually applies in the specific case of specific edits or any sort of objective standard. It seems that a certain small group of editor arbitrarily says some policy supports deleting edits that they do not like, and that that "proves" every edit which contradicts this POV my be summarily deleted, despite professionally sound research proving the medical use of turmeric in humans to be based on sound science. Also, this is not the way consensus works on Wikipedia. We are not just forming a clique group of editors that have appoint themselves final arbiters of policy guidelines such as MEDRES just by bring them up and making a claim and then agreeing with each other. So, instead, let's use actual examinations of citations and what they actually conclude. Let's looks at editorial merits according to MEDRES and how this applies, but not on the basis of preventing article by saying "MEDRES" without a valid basis. Let's be clear, neither MEDRES nor the other policies which you name-dropped, have any part of them which allows some editor or group of editors to get veto power by invoking them arbitrarily and on their say-so. Editors do not get to control editorial content through mere broad personal claims and opinion based on unreasonable claims that a Wikipedia policy supports their agreed upon POV claim, especially when it does not. Dcattell (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The way the section is written now seems to acknowledge some of the early-stage or "weak" evidence of its medicinal uses. Could you point to a specific edit that you believe most strongly should be added, and provide a source for others like me to see without sifting through the edit history? I also get annoyed by seeing the same small gang of editors watching these articles and reverting every attempt to improve, but there does need to be a strong case made. If there is, I recommend a Request for Comment to get some outside eyes. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

One specific edit which I strongly think should be added is to edit the Medical research section to instead of saying the current:

"==Medical research==

See also: Curcumin

Turmeric and curcumin have been studied in numerous clinical trials for various human diseases and conditions, with no high-quality evidence of any anti-disease effect or health benefit. There is no scientific evidence that curcumin reduces inflammation, as of 2020. There is weak evidence that turmeric extracts may be beneficial for relieving symptoms of knee osteoarthritis."

To saying something like:

Turmeric and curcumin have been studied in numerous clinical trials for various human diseases and conditions, with high-quality evidence of any anti-disease effect or health benefit for various conditions. Turmeric and curcumin have been undergoing study, for example at the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, for reduction of inflammation "whether and how curcuminoids may be converted in bone tissue into substances that may have effects on bone diseases", however the results are complicated by the low bioavailability from oral ingestion, the chemical instability of curcumin, the chemical variations and complexity of turmeric, and their complex actions in people; so, conclusions about health benefits "remain unclear". as of 2020. There is strong evidence that turmeric extracts may be beneficial for relieving symptoms of knee osteoarthritis.

This was mostly to reflect what the NCCIH source said in 2020. However, upon further and far more looking into this than I was originally planning it is clear that there is good, recent research. it is the case that the text and references should be updated. WP:MEDRES clearly emphasizes the importance of up to date and otherwise reliable sources. The ones in this section are clearly outdated (two from 2016, one from, 2017, one from 2019). Research has moved on (as indicated that it would in these sources). I would like to add a good recent meta-analysis here: that would be the preferred WP:MEDRES way (actually using a meta-analysis is standard research methodology). There are better, more recent research: however; even the sources here are being misrepresented, and its insisted that they are somehow canonical. I would also like to see one of the sources on double-blind clinical experimental results added. I am willing to suggest some, but do not wish to waste by time, if we have a situation here (as it seems to be) that a small assortment of editors claim "MEDREF" and deny the use of better sources but there is no actual discussion of this actually discuss. What we have here is opinionated claims that want to deny recent research, and to insist that the existent material cited may only be interpreted by one point of view, even if it says something else or is superseded by research that is half a decade newer. For example the Dailey, Wang source cited says "In conclusion, these RCTs [randomized clinical trials] provide scientific evidence that supports the efficacy of turmeric extract (about 1000 mg/day of curcumin) in the treatment of arthritis. However, the total number of RCTs included in the analysis, the total sample size, and the methodological quality of the primary studies were not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Thus, more rigorous and larger studies are needed to confirm the therapeutic efficacy of turmeric for arthritis." The current article cites this as saying that "Turmeric and curcumin have been studied in numerous clinical trials for various human diseases and conditions, with no high-quality evidence of any anti-disease effect or health benefit." There us a big difference between having substantial evidence from high quality RTCs that are not definitive and saying there is "no high quality evidence". In the case of the "weak evidence" cited in Wang and Singh et al, looking at what the citation says it is clear that characterization of "weak" evidence is an editorial assertion not based on the actual Wang etc. source which says "Sixteen RCTs of up to 16 weeks duration including 1810 adults with knee OA were included. Eleven RCTs compared the efficacy of turmeric extracts with placebo and five with active comparators (NSAIDs). The overall risk bias of included RCTs was moderate. Turmeric extracts significantly reduced knee pain (SMD - 0.82, 95% CI - 1.17 to - 0.47, I2 = 86.23%) and improved physical function (SMD - 0.75, 95% CI - 1.18 to - 0.33, I2 = 90.05%) compared to placebo but had similar effects compared to NSAIDs. BMI was the major contributor to heterogeneity in the placebo-controlled studies (explained 37.68% and 67.24%, respectively, in the models) and modified the effects of the turmeric on pain and physical function with less improvement with higher BMI (SMD 0.26 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48; SMD 0.48 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). No significant between-group differences were reported for either biochemical markers or imaging outcomes. Turmeric extracts had 12% fewer adverse events than NSAIDs and similar rates to placebo. Turmeric extract is a safe and effective option for the symptomatic management of knee OA, compared to placebo or NSAIDs. However, current evidence from short-term studies is heterogeneous and has moderate risk of bias leading to some uncertainty about the true effect. However, current evidence from short-term studies is heterogeneous and has moderate risk of bias leading to some uncertainty about the true effect." This is a very strong case for replacing "weak evidence" with something like "Turmeric extract is a safe and effective option for the symptomatic management of knee OA, compared to placebo or NSAIDs." (A direct quote from the actual paper, citing 16 high quality controlled studies on humans. A direct quote here would be better tan a statement of opinion. Wang etc.'s only caveat here is that more studies in the future are likely to produce more specifically accurate results. Wang etc.'s statement that, "Turmeric extract is a safe and effective option for the symptomatic management of knee OA" is not equivocal: in fact it says that there is strong reliable evidence, and to say otherwise is to state a falsehood. The is much strong recent research: if it seems to be worth my time and while I am willing to add some other, newer research of equal or better professional quality, or at least suggest it for discussion. It is clear that the NPOV on medical research on turmeric shows that there are high quality research experiments on humans (also other mammals) that show that turmeric is unequivocal effective clinically effective. These studies also call for more study, but so that the results may be refined and enhanced, not in the sense that there is anything other than strong evidence for the usefulness of turmeric. The current state of medical research involving the "Turmeric" as it now exists is false representation of currently cited sources and does not reflect the current state of research. The case is clear that the "Turmeric" article should be revised based even just upon its current cited sources. The case is even stronger that the article should be updated to reflect good current professional research and publications. Dcattell (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Dcattell - Writing an essay may be useful for your sandbox practice, but it is too diffuse here to be helpful. Use WP:ER to state a specific change(s) which is then supported by a high-quality, secondary source from a reputable medical publication described in WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. This is a PubMed listing of clinical studies done on turmeric, few of which are "a high-quality, secondary source from a reputable medical publication." Zefr (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zefr: The most relevant guideline here is WP:OWN. With all due respect, your suggestion that you have some authority to issue lists of citation sources for other editors to follow frankly stinks. It also ignores the requirement that sources need to support what is written in the article. For example, Wang, Singh, et al say "Turmeric extracts significantly reduced knee pain". Their claim is unequivocal. If you want to say (as the sad current state of "Turmeric" does) that this is "weak evidence" for symptomatic relief then you are required to provide a rebuttal, supported by a reliable source, of course. Dcattell (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see nothing in the TLDR argumentation to support changing the article - ie no case has been made for the changes suggested. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 14:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

wooF, wooF

@Roxy the dog/Zefr The problem here is that Wikipedia article improvement is being stifled by your tag team. I attempted to add some improvements to the "Turmeric article". As evident from the edit history material which I added and the reference sources which were summarily deleted are of good quality, from peer-reviewed journals. The references that I attempted to add were all found at JSTOR. According to Wikipedia guidelines on citing sources of research regarding modern science and medicine, all else being equal, then priority should be given to new research for factual claims of recent knowledge. In other words, it is the case that the 2016 journal references that you are insisting upon retaining should be updated to ones which reflect the newer findings. Much research has been done in the last few years, and there are good studies published in 2021. Of course, these should be from peer-reviewed sources by reputable authors. Of course, these should be published by reputable publishers. What justifies the claim that publications of the British Medical Journal are "unreliable"? What justifies the original research claim that Wang, Singh, et al's 2021 evidence is "weak"? Wang etc. say, "[t]urmeric extracts significantly reduced knee pain...and improved physical function...compared to placebo but had similar effects compared to NSAIDs." This is unequivocal evidence, not weak evidence, per the cited source, and the article should reflect this. Wang etc. also say, "Turmeric extracts had 12% fewer adverse events than NSAIDs and similar rates to placebo." Why should this not be in the "Turmeric" article? I am just using this as an example, because it is already cited in the article, and because it is a meta-analysis of 16 randomized control trials, so pretty much represents the best and latest science. There are many more peer-reviewed studies with similar conclusions. The current state of research is that turmeric is unequivocally useful for medical treatment, that more research should be done, and that various extracts or laboratory synthesized or GMO produced (and presumably patentable) compounds look to be promising for further medical use. And yes, I do get the gratuitous insults, such as "sandbox editing" and "TLDR argumentation". "TLDR" stands for Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. A current JSTOR search for "turmeric" refined to only include academic journals comes up with 3,440. All of these tend to be longer than my comments here. If your attitude is that you do not bother to read academic material because it is too long for you (or you think it belongs in a sandbox), then you really should not make it your business to edit articles which depend upon references to peer-reviewed technical sources. Dcattell (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

General discussion

I will welcome any and all discussion here, and hope to work towards some (new?) consensus in which the article becomes open to general editing by general editors. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia in which anyone should be able to edit "Turmeric" article. I think it is time for this article to move on. Article stability is one thing, however not at the expense of a quality, up-to-date article. There are now numerous high-quality, double blind, studies and meta-analyses. The article falsely states otherwise. In 2016, results tended to be equivocal, and many new studies were in the beginning stages, which now have published results. There are also many new studies. I (and it seems others) have suggested or applied some such changes to incorporate this in the article, improvement efforts which have generally been reverted, generally along with the reference citations. Some of these concern the small medical section of the article, many the general article itself. Since it seems for me and possibly various other editors impossible to make these changes without provoking an edit war (or accusations doing so), I am proposing this discussion as the next stage here to discuss this here, on the talk page, and if it becomes exhausted to move on to the next recommended stage. If you have any comments please add them. Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Replacing obsolescent sources with more modern ones

The sources in the "Turmeric" article should be improved. Many of them are outdated and indicate a large amount of on going research. Some of these older articles should be phased out with newer research. In many cases, this research is 4 - 5 years newer, with significant new findings. Some is by the same or some of the same authorial team and some is published in the same journals and/or by the same publisher. If such almost identical sources were good enough in 2016 or so then the newer results should be preferred. This has been an area of much scientific progress, which we would be remiss not to reflect here. New results include rigorous double-blind studies as well as meta-analyses of these. Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding some new material along with up-to-date quality citations

As stated above, there are many new scientific and medical results published in the best medical and experimental journals. Per the top of this page this article is primarily a project of four WikiProjects: Dietary Supplements, Plants, Food and drink / Herbs and Spices, and Vietnam. Given this, it would be helpful for general readers to have more general information and summaries of information. For example the medical benefits of curcumin (a component of turmeric) are better generally handled in more specialty medical articles; for example, "Curcumin. Again, for general use of nonspecialists a more generally helpful reference to add to our article would be along the lines of from Harvard Health Publishing of the Harvard Medical School. Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Turmeric" is not primarily a medical article

Non-medical references are fine, as long as they have quality sources (and not primarily promoting product sales). There is no reason that non-medical should be held to special standards. Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Turmeric" is not an article about curmumin

Curcumin is indeed a reasonably safe and effective medicinal substance (see for example, the many references to this, such as [ "Safety and efficacy of curcumin versus diclofenac in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized open-label parallel-arm study". Shep and Khanwelkar. 2019.]), linked to in the above-mentioned article from Harvard Medical School's blog. Cucurumin is one of many medicinal or possibly medicinal compounds found in turmeric. Cucurmin and the other compounds are of encyclopedic value, and our turmeric article should have some brief discussion of them, but our focus should be on turmeric as a plant, not curcumin as a medicine. Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

General use of reference citations

Reference citations should support the article and accurately reflect what the sources themselves say. We have a policy Wikipedia:No original research including no synthesis of sources. We also have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. "Turmeric" may be considered "medicine related" Some excerpts from the "Common pitfalls" section are worth noting here: "Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource...Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, these two groups do not by themselves represent the target audience." The "Citing sources" section if this guidance re-emphasizes the no original research guideline by saying, "Do not publish your own views about studies." This practice should be should be deprecated here. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is another guideline here relevant here. There are specific guideline which particularly apply to the "Medical research section". This guidance also makes it clear that specific medical standards does not apply and are inappropriate to the rest of a general (non-specifically medical) article. In other words, for other parts of the article WP:MOS and [[26]] apply and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) clearly does not apply. In other words, if an editor wishes to write in the non-medical sections (which is most of the article) about Ayurvedic use, use by witch doctors, how quacks on the fringes of science get rich off of it: this is fine according to Wikipedia guidelines (assuming such sources exist) by following WP:MOS, etc. Citing medically-specific standards should neither be done nor insisted upon nor insisted upon, or used as a basis to prevent article improvement. The section on traditional use should be expanded. Many editors would like to add information about Ayurveda, why not a new section. (And, is not including this an example of systemic bias?) If quackery and fraud are rampant around turmeric than it is especially appropriate to add a new section on quackery and fraud. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is very clear, to quote:

Biomedical v. general information

Further information: Wikipedia:Biomedical information

Biomedical information requires MEDRS sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not.

For example, an article on Dr Foster's Magic Purple Pills could contain both biomedical and non-biomedical claims:

Dr Foster's pills cure everything. A biomedical claim! Strong MEDRS sourcing is definitely required here (see WP:MEDASSESS)

The pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015. This is not biomedical information, and it only requires ordinary RS

They are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box,[citation needed] as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one.[medical citation needed]

Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page rule changes?

When did it become good practise to not sign posts on this Talk page?

It is never too late to sign your posts! I apologize if there has been any confusion here. It was meant as one long post, and I signed it at the end; however, I see due to the nature of the section structure that this was unclear, so I am signing them individually. Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources should not be misrepresented

Current references should evaluated and the article modified accordingly. For example Wang and Singh, et al, 2012 (op cit), clearly say, "Turmeric extracts significantly reduced knee pain." No where do conclude, say, or imply that their evidence is weak: rather they find, unequivocal results for turmeric and turmeric extracts for turmeric being a safe and effective alternative for NSAIDs in treating osteoarthritis of the knee. This citation as used does not support what is said in the journal paper, instead blatantly contradicting it. This citation to "Efficacy and Safety of Turmeric Extracts for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials" (above) should remain and the article should be changed to accurately and truthfully reflect the actual results. In fact, evaluating 16 randomized, double blind studies is the point of their paper. This is just one example. The current state of at least the medical section of "Turmeric" making claims generally unsupported or even contradicted by the reference themselves. Insisting that "there is no high-quality evidence of any anti-disease effect or health benefit" or that, "There is no scientific evidence that cucurumin reduces inflammation, as of 2020" is an out and out falsehood. These claimed conclusions are not supported by the up-to-date medical science. Many of sources in the medical section also not only do not support the conclusions but unambiguously contradict the claims. An exception is an article from 2016, acknowledging an active state of research at the time, but irrelevant by 2020. So, far, I have gone though about half the cited sources in the medical section. The conclusion is clear: the existing sources cited are being grossly distorted. Dcattell (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source says the studies reviewed have heterogeneity issues and some risk of bias. So what we have is a fair summary. Also, learn to WP:SIGN posts and lay off the overblown rhetoric. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, one of the main points of meta-analysis is to quantify bias -- and the bias is low in the cited studies. One could not expect the bias quantification to be zero, could we? I am not really sure to whom "we" refers, but "we" do not have an accurate summary here. Dcattell (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Following wiki guidelines and civility in editing

It should not be necessary to say that Wikipedia guidelines should be followed here, and we could be doing a lot better job here. Civility in editing should be followed. Insults and threats on talk pages and editorial summaries should be desisted from. We should work to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia by working together. Dcattell (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:PACT. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

How is this essay relevant? Dcattell (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Cultivation

Growing conditions

Turmeric is cultivated in the subtropical to tropical zone. In India for example it is usually grown in warm to hot, and perhumid to humid subregions, Optimum temperature ranges from 18.2 - 27.4 °C and optimum altitude ranges from 450-900 m above mean sea level. Turmeric can be grown at rainfall levels ranging from 64-429 cm. Depending on the distribution and the amount of rainfall, it is either grown as a purely rainfed crop (bimodal rainfall) or supported by irrigation (unimodal, low rainfall). In case it is grown as a rainfed crop, fairly heavy rainfall for the first 2 months after planting is essential for sprouting, root and shoot emergence, and enlargement of the crop. Ideally rainfall should amount to about 150 cm at sowing, remain fairly heavy and well distributed during the growing season and finally give way to dry weather about one month before harvest.

Soil should be well-drained, deep loamy to clay loam and further have high levels of major and secondary nutrients, high organic carbon content and base saturation with a pH ranging at about 4.3-7.5. Different soil types, which are grouped under Inceptisols, Entisols, Vertisols, Alfisols, and Ultisols have been found to be suitable for the cultivation of Turmeric. Coarse and heavy soils on the other hand can hinder rhizome development.

Planting

Turmeric is propagated vegetatively for commercial production. Two types of rhizomes are distinguished, the “mother rhizome” and the “finger rhizome”. The latter is developed from the mother rhizome and also known as “daughter rhizome”. Depending on their position the fingers are considered primary, secondary or tertiary fingers. Both mother and finger rhizomes are good planting material and used for propagation, with different trends for different regions. A higher field performance is attributed to mother rhizomes, due to rapid growth, good development and higher yields. Farmers aiming for high yield should use either mother rhizomes or primary fingers. For mother rhizomes spacing of 45 cm x 30 cm was found to be the best planting sequence.

Harvesting

The rhizomes can be harvested after 7 to 10 months, depending on the cultivar, soil and growing conditions. The whole plant including the leaves and stem dries up, which indicates the maturity of the crop. Irrigation is usually stopped one month before the harvest, to allow the plant to dry. The actual harvesting can be performed in different ways. Usually, the stems of the plants are first cut at the ground. Then the rhizomes are dug out. This can be done manually using a spade. Another way is to first loosen up the soil using for instance a plow and then remove the soil clumps containing the rhizomes by hand. There are also harvester machines available for turmeric. After the harvest, the rhizomes are cleaned from soil and the roots are removed. Some of them will be stored to be planted again in the following year. The rhizomes intended for consumption or other commercial use will be further processed including boiling and drying. Sofie25 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Sofie25 - This proposed section provides some useful information on cultivation. The first and second references are of concern due to misinformation in the first (turmeric is neither invaluable nor medicinal) and likely predatory publishing in the second. Please replace them with WP:SCIRS reviews. Note also that there is no space between references, and punctuation comes before the reference tag, WP:REFPUNCT, with no space. Zefr (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift feedback. I will adapt the formatting for the references (no space and correct punctuation). Also, thank you for the info that the second source might be predatory publishing. I will remove it. Regarding the first source (Agronomy of turmeric) I think it might still be a good and reliable source. It is from a book published by Springer Publishing which seems to be a serious and rather renowned publisher (also using the peer-review process). And the author is an expert in the field (agronomist). The choice of the title of the book maybe wasn‘t ideal (using the term „invaluable“). But since turmeric has long been used in traditional medicine in China and India, I would argue that the term „medicinal“ isn‘t misinformation in this case, whether the medicinal properties have been proven or not. Also for the suggested new entry about cultivation we only use the chapter number 6 „ Agronomy of Turmeric“ as reference, which does not mention any medicinal uses of turmeric. Sofie25 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussion

Please see the archived discussion for this talk page, dear readers and editors, just generally. There is a link to archived discussion in the box above. Especially relevant is the discussion about the quality of the "Turmeric" article, how to improve, and repetitive obstacles preventing improvement. Thank you, Dcattell (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the first Wikipedia article I have found medically unhelpful

Regarding the anti-inflammatory properties. The article says now: "There is no scientific evidence that curcumin reduces inflammation, as of 2020." I have been suffering from severe hand inflammation from rheumatoid arthritis and turmeric/curcumin has had a dramatic and sudden effect in really reducing the inflammation a lot. It is clear that it was the turmeric that did it, and it's a real quality of life improvement.

This is an anecdote, and I'm not going to go searching the literature to see if what the article says should be revised. I'm a humanities researcher, not a scientist. But I felt moved to say that here is the first time that if I relied on the Wikipedia article, I would not have tried the turmeric, and my hands would still be inflamed. deisenbe (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give medical advice, and even if it did anecdotes are not good medical evidence of anything. Your statement "It is clear that it was the turmeric that did it" is not scientific. I am glad your hands feel better. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

People go to Wikipedia for medical advice all the time. deisenbe (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOMEDICAL. There's no medical advice in this article, but there is an accurate reflection of scientific knowledge wrt tumeric and inflammation. Bon courage (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Where is turmeric found

j 103.111.7.81 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)