Talk:Fenugreek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink / Herbs and Spices (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment moved to talk page[edit]

"Fenugreek" is an inherently funny word. The word comes from the Latin for "Greek hay," suggesting the Romans found it funny too.

==contribs) 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I added a redirect page from serum cholesterol to cholesterol, since it covers the clinical aspects as well as the normal chemistry. Poochner 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The ancient site where this plant was first identified is Tell Halaf, not Tell Halal. To my knowledge there is no place, ancient or modern, called Tell Halal. The reference to the publication (note 2) by Zohary and Hopf appears to be correct. Unfortunately, this error in spelling was copied as such by other links. [user:prentissdej], 9:55 am EST, 28 May 2012.Prentissdej (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction


spelling?[edit]

According to my (Persian) mother the Persian name of fenugreek is spelled with an "n" not an "m" in Persian. Someone might want to fix that. 81.216.206.250 (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

be our guest, and thank your mom for us


Lead sentence[edit]

Should not the lead sentence of an article tell what the subject of the article is? This lead sentence enumerates common names, and the taxonomic family in which it is placed, but never says whether we are talking about a plant or animal or mineral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Marlin (talkcontribs) 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosh HaShanah custom =[edit]

Can anyone verify the custom of eating fenugreek on Rosh Hashanah? The Babylonian Talmud (Kritut 5b and Horayot 12a) says that seeing (or eating) Rubia on the New Year is a sign of good luck. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 11th century) in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 109a, identifies Rubia as fenugreek. I do not have any idea what Rashi's source is. A purely speculative guess would be that he read Rubia as a Latin word (it means madder, the red dye, in Latin). Hilbe (fenugreek seeds), the ubiquitous spice of the Yeminite community, is a rust brown color. Could this have led Rashi to identify Rubia as fenugreek? I stress that this is an unscientific guess, because both madder and fenugreek should have been known in Rashi's 11th century France; and unlikely to be confused.

In any case, the custom is still followed by orthodox Sefaradi and Israeli Jews to this day. However, Rubia is understood to be black-eyed peas (see that article in the Wikipedia). This makes sense, as black-eyed peas are called Lubiya in Arabic. The Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud is very closely related to Arabic. For instance, another good luck sign mentioned in the same two sources is the Qara (bottle gourd), which is also the name of the bottle gourd in Arabic. I have started asking Sefaradim about this. I have not yet found anyone who uses fenugreek for Rubia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.62.109.164 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your guess is just that. Rubya is another name for tiltan, and the Rambam (Perush Hamishnayot Kilayim 2:5, and Terumot 10:5) explicitly translates tiltan as alhilbe. If Sefardim use lubya as a siman as well, that's all very well, just as Ashkenazim use meren; but if anyone claims that black-eyed peas are rubya he does so out of ignorance. -- Zsero (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I did some more research over Rosh Hashana. I had misunderstood your original point about Rashi; I thought you were disputing the translation of תלתן as fenugreek, so I cited Maimonides for that. But you weren't disputing that at all; rather, you were disputing the translation of רוביא as תלתן. You are right that it is Rashi who makes that translation; the Tur explicitly cites him as the source for this identification, and thus he is the source for the Shulchan Aruch and all subsequent authorities who make this identification. Avudraham identifies רוביא as פול המצרי, "Egyptian peas", which I assume is the same as black-eyed peas. I have modified the footnote accordingly.
By the way, thanks for making me do that research; I also discovered along the way that the source which Be'er Hagolah cites as "Mordechai, beginning of chapter 1 of Rosh Hashana", is actually Ran at the end of Rosh Hashana. I then found the Bet Yosef made the same mistake. That section at the end of the Ran must have been mistakenly printed in some early edition as the beginning of the Mordechai, and it must have been repeated in several subsequent editions, because it's unlikely that the Bet Yosef writing in Israel in the mid-16th century, and the Be'er Hagolah writing in Amsterdam 100 years later, would both be using the same edition. -- Zsero (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Exaggerated Health Claims[edit]

The health claims make fenugreek look like magic potion. I don't have the time to track down the references but this page reads like a pamphlet in a naturopath's office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.182.219 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The author cites references. Please refute them authoritatively or withdraw your objection.Enstardavid (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't feel comfortable making an edit, but as far as the "900%" increase in breast milk production - the citation points to a dead link. The only relevant line on the breasfeeding.org site that it points to is this- "Options are herbal galactogogues such as fenugreek (no controlled studies but generally recognized as safe)..." The previous commenter is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.103.108 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


I review the citation to back up the claims of increased libido and to be honest I am not impressed... 2 of the references point toward newspaper article with 0 scitific values, 1 link points toward a studies that made the claim: a study of such poor quality should not even been considered in Wikipedia. And the last link points towards a reviews of studies about type 2 diabetes (the author of this paper also noted the very poor quality of all the studies on the matter)

This is an article not an advertisement[edit]

I have removed the unsupported statement "the famous name of Fenugreek is Kasuri Methi..." and associated links to a commercial website. These were added by an unidentified user with no explanatory comment, and seem to be an attempt to turn the article into an advertisement for a particular supplier. HairyDan (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You were wrong to do so! I'm just another Westerner but I do know that "Kasuri Methi" is a famous food item, in fact a daily staple, in many cusines including Indian, Persian, and others. I do not know why there is one specific brand that is so popular but the closest I can liken it to for Westerners is "Heinz Ketchup". Kasuri Methi is used as a condiment as well as an ingredient so it is a very good analogy. No one would ever argue that "Heinz Ketchup" is not a famous food item in the West or try to scrub it out of an article about ketchup. Kasuri Methi is just such a famous item. One can find it on the shelves of stores worldwide. There are many shops that carry it even in my small Amercian city. Kasuri Methi is already on the tables of billions of the world's population today. They hardly need a link in wikipedia. Too funny!
I'm not the guy who added it to the article earlier or a company shill. I'm sure the company could give two toots about wikipedia.
I'd like to see a mention of Kasuri Methi and a link to a wikipedia page on it. As a Westener I would love to know the story of how it became so popular with such a huge fraction of the world's population.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.77.92 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked the Tomato Ketchup article, Heinz is mentioned as a notable manufacturer, understandably, but the article does not link to any Heinz sites. There is no logical argument to support the inclusion of links. If I was a 'westerner' I would be able to quench my burning desire for Kasuri Methi links with a Google search. There is no value or precedent in including a link, and it indicates a preference for a particular brand, therefore on balance it is wrong. Incidentally I had never heard of this brand, so it would have constituted advertising from my point of view. 91.104.145.190 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Material[edit]

Article has been tagged for needing sourcing since September 2010. I have revised the Cuisine section to remove unsourced material and am inserting a copy of the original version here. Please feel free to source and reincorporate the below material into the article! Doniago (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/fenugreek
  2. ^ "How to Series: Growing Methi (Fenugreek)". A blog called "Fenugreek Love". Retrieved 2 March 2011. 
  3. ^ a b Gall, Alevtina; Zerihun Shenkute (November 3, 2009). "Ethiopian Traditional and Herbal Medications and their Interactions with Conventional Drugs". EthnoMed. University of Washington. Retrieved January 27, 2011. 
  4. ^ This is based on the assumption that the Aramaic name רוביא corresponds to it. (Karetot 6a; Horiyot 12a) Rabbenu Nissim at the end of Rosh Hashana, citing the custom of R Hai Gaon. This follows Rashi's translation of רוביא, cited as authoritative by Tur and Shulchan Aruch OC 583:1. But Avudraham interprets רוביא as black-eyed peas.
  5. ^ Turkyılmaz, C.; Onal, E.; Hirfanoglu, I. M.; Turan, O.; Koç, E.; Ergenekon, E.; Atalay, Y. L. Z. (2011). "The Effect of Galactagogue Herbal Tea on Breast Milk Production and Short-Term Catch-Up of Birth Weight in the First Week of Life". The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 17 (2): 139–142. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0090. PMID 21261516.  edit
  6. ^ http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_fenugreek.html
  7. ^ Sharma, RD; Raghuram, TC; Rao, NS (1990). "Effect of fenugreek seeds on blood glucose and serum lipids in type I diabetes". European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 44 (4): 301–6. PMID 2194788.  edit

Taxonomy[edit]

I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, and haven't quite mastered making changes, but I noticed that the taxonomic classification of this plant isn't right. It does not include Phylum, Class, or Order in it, and seems to have an extra classification. I know from grade 11 biology that the taxonomy classifications are: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKerrivan (talkcontribs) 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe yes or maybe not?[edit]

Lactation: Fenugreek seeds are thought to be a galactagogue that is often used to increase milk supply in lactating women.[11]

Seeds: fenugreek seed is widely used as a galactagogue (milk producing agent) by nursing mothers to increase inadequate breast milk supply. Studies have shown that fenugreek is a potent stimulator of breast milk production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.166.138 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

unsourced language section[edit]

This section is completely unsourced, unnecessary and brings nothing to the article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an interlanguage dictionary, and per WP:COATRACK, it is not an indiscriminate collection of tidbits. If the advocate thinks there should be something on the diffusion of fenugreek, then write prose, sourced, about the diffusion of fenugreek. A blotch of languages tells nothing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you continue to revert without any connection to any relevant Wikipedia policy, it's time to go to 3O.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: declined - I had to remove this post because of lack of thorough discussion between both the parties. Unless both sides present their views adequately, 3O cannot be given. For more information, refer to the main instruction page. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The section blanked shows the different words for fenugreek used around the world. It has been contributed to by many editors for a long time without issue. Sourcing is not necessary for simple definitions that are not challenged. A Georgian (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your 3O request has been again removed. A single response by an editor cannot be seen as a thorough discussion. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) PS: Having said that, I do think that A Georgian's replacement of this unsourced material was improper. The BURDEN section of the Verifiability policy says: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." That makes it very clear (a) that any unsourced material may be removed, (b) that it is improper to replace unsourced material after it has been removed as being unsourced, and (c) that the fact that it's been here for a long time is a reason for it to be removed not given yet another chance to be sourced, especially since it's been {{citation needed}}–tagged for months. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A source, reference, or citation is not required for every word in a list the verifiability of which has not been challenged. If someone disputes that, for instance, "halba" is not the correct Malay word for fenugreek, then it should be removed if a reliable source cannot be found. That was not the case when Ugog Nizdast first blanked the section; his reasoning then was to the section itself. Only when his blanking was reverted did he raise the question of verifiability. A Georgian (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The addition of the {{citation needed}} tag, months ago, was the challenge. Even if that had not been done, Kintetsubuffalo's deletion of the material for lack of sourcing would be the challenge. I'm sorry, but you're just simply wrong: As stated by BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." It doesn't get much clearer than "any material." What you're probably confused about is the standard, also in BURDEN, "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." But that's the standard for adding material. Once someone removes it for lack of sourcing, that removal is the challenge. The best practice is to state that you're removing it because it is unsourced and that you have a concern that it's unverifiable, but simply removing it is not a violation of policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
So there is a question re: verfiability? Is every definition in the section being challenged? Are any? If so, which one or ones? A Georgian (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
A tag at the end of a section or paragraph ordinarily challenges everything unsourced in the paragraph, but that question is moot since Kintetsubuffalo removed all of it in this edit. That challenges it all. Remember, however, that sourcing is now only the threshold requirement. Kintetsubuffalo had other objections as well. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with him about those objections, but only that they ought to be discussed if the material is to be restored in a sourced form. But sourcing it is the first step. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This section was not created all at once. It is the product of many contributors over time. None of the elements of the section were challenged when it was added. The whole block was blanked, and it was blanked for reasons other than sourcing. It is disengenuous to shift the reason to sourcing when the section blanking was reverted. There is no content that has been challenged re: verifiability, so it, as it was added met WP; there was no indication that it would or should be challenged. It seems to me that Kintetsubuffalo or Ugog Nizdast should come up with at least one example of error in the section before requiring that each and every element in it be sourced. A Georgian (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You're simply repeating arguments which have already been answered, above. I'm only here to tell you what the policy is (and Ugog was only here to decline the 3O); what you and Kintetsubuffalo do with that information is up to you. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be redundant if it were present elsewhere in the article A Georgian (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It need not be present anywhere in the article as it is already present elsewhere on the page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not see the information in a side-bar A Georgian (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It's at the very bottom of the side bar; you'll need to be on the article page to see it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As TM noted above, reinserting information that has been challenged due to verifiability concerns (other concerns notwithstanding) without providing any sourcing is a clear violation of WP:BURDEN. I am consequently re-removing the information and will consider its reinsertion without any referencing by any editors involved in this discussion to be in bad faith unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you remove my response to Iaritmioawp? Here it is again; please do not revert again until the discussion is complete. A Georgian (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything and it is inappropriate of you to ignore WP:BURDEN without an explanation. Please stop reinserting challenged material without providing any references. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I have ignored nothing, I have explained myself. If you do not accept my explanation that is one thing, but it is there. If we do not agree, then let's seek resolution. A Georgian (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I've made a request for page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you TM. A Georgian, reviewing this thread I see you explaining why you believe the information should not require sourcing, but that's not pertinent to WP:BURDEN. Once information has been challenged per BURDEN it no longer matters what editors believe (barring a consensus, which at least seems unlikely in this particular case); sources are required for inclusion.
As has been noted, there are concerns beyond the lack of sourcing, but you would have a much stronger case for inclusion if you could at least provide those sources instead of violating what is IMO a pretty clear policy simply because, apparently, you don't feel it applies to the information in question. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
So you are requiring a source for every term in the section? No one has yet disputed the verifiability of a single term. A Georgian (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I have already answered that question and objection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Is that a "yes"? A Georgian (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally I've found that the more an editor seems to resist providing sourcing, the more I tend to insist upon it. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)