Talk:Aloe vera

Question about science project

Could we make a spray ointment using an aloe vera for our investidatory project in science? --202.81.175.205 11:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)chicka

The other story

Yes, it is too often hyped (which is why we started a website on it) into something aloe isn't. There are companies that make health claims that are both illegal and irresponsible. But aloe vera gel IS an excellent nutritional drink when the outer rind and Aloin (which resides just under the rind) are removed. [Aloe Vera Studies Organization]<-- Link removed. Seriously, the site is a commercial parking lot for product sales. The fact that is a .ORG domain does not validate it as a reliable source - unfortunately. [User: Palmyra]

According to some Aloe is a hyped, marketing tool. It's use to treat the grapes for example is simply because the plant is succulent (like cactusses). This means that the plant holds water in a gel-like substance. The grapes that are treated with Aloe are shielded from air and thus better protected. For the same reason a shaving cut treated with the gel heals more rapidly, with it functioning as a natural band-aid.

The Aloin in the gel are proven to have negative(!) effects on the colon, some people develop a black stain on their colon due to irritation. Also, Aloin is a laxative. In other words; shouldn't the negative side of this plant be exposed?--Cruzlee 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Cruzlee , do you (or anyone) have any proof of what you say? because I use it daily as a drink, you scared me! I mean a link to a site about this claim would be not bad. --212.24.224.18 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Negative effects determined in appropriately rigourous studies should be included in the article - but we need to ensure we cite the relevant sources for WP:V. MidgleyDJ 20:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

aloe vera is good for burns i have a small one at my house( blackberry57)

Aloe has many benefits both internally and externally. You can't overdose on the stuff.

The anthraquinones [1] is indeed a laxative, but comes from the extract at the base of the leaf itself. --bburrell

The second use comes from the yellow sap at the base of the leaf. The leaves are cut transversally at their base and the liquid that exudes from this cut is dried[4]. It is called bitter aloes and contains anthraquinones which are a useful digestive stimulant and a strong laxative[254]. When plants are grown in pots the anthraquinone content is greatly reduced[254].

Print Preview Lockup

Selecting the "printable version" link of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aloe_vera&printable=yes, then doing a print preview, locks up Firefox 2.0.0.1 and SeaMonkey 1.1a. Works OK with IE 7.0.5730.11. Print preview on other articles' printable version works fine.

I can't reproduce the problem, but a lockup is always a browser bug. If it isn't fixed yet, you should enter a report in Bugzilla. Shinobu (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Jojoba

Jojoba helps on burns also. MeekMark 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Under medicinal uses, it states that experimental results have been contradictory. It states that Aloe vera is reputedly an "anti-inflammatory substance", but that, and the article takes this as a contradiction, in another study it has shown to slow the healing process.

It is not contradictory, but in fact definitive, for a subs tance to be "anti-inflammatory" AND to slow the wound healing process. Anti-inflammatory substances prevent platelet aggregation - hence scabbing, etc.

MY Comments

HI THIS IS A BEST MEDICINE TO CURE YOUR HAIR FALL

Am I in Japan

In Japan aloe vera is commonly used as an ingredient in commercially available yoghurt in the same way as for example strawberries are mixed in yoghurt in western countries. from the article. I probably live in japan and I didn't notice it yet, i also buy it here, but I believe I live in Portugal. It is commercialized in pieces with yoghurt, and some times also with Pomegranate.--85.244.34.191 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He's pretty obviously saying that aloe vera yogurt is also consumed in Portugal. Casey J. Morris (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to know where he lives. That's what Aloin does to you, or so I heard.--Cruzlee (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt...

The article states: "Use in foods In Japan aloe vera is commonly used as an ingredient in commercially available yoghurt in the same way as for example strawberries are mixed in yoghurt in western countries. There are also several Korean companies which produce aloe vera beverages." I disagree with the statement 'in the same way as strawberries...' Strawberries are used as a flavoring agent in yogurt (or yoghurt, depending on style of English) whereas, if used, aloe in yogurt in Japan would be used as mainly a preservative or nutrient. As aloe is tasteless, (or slightly unpleasant-tasting before stabilization) I will be wp:bold and remove this. Samir Patel 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs

The section about 'use in food' is mostly unreferenced. If i cannot find refs, I will have to delete it.

aloe vera juice should be it's own aricle.

Needs more info, but could have enough for a stub. I think aloe vera juice has enough info and relevance with laxative properties and anatacid properties to be it's own article, starting as a stub.

is it a cactus?

or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.28.103 (talk) 04:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

It is not a cactus, but a member of the lily family (Liliopsida) [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonic (talk • contribs) 19:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

PSHT!

Aloe Vera is fantastic for burns, this entire article is a mess! Aloe Vera soothes burns and especially sun burns. All this "effect unknown" business is highly misleading. I have a bunch of Aloe plants and they work wonders for sunburns.

Aloe is also made into a fantastic sweet drink with floaty aloe bits. I have a bottle on my table right now, from Woolworths (Australia). Apparentyly made by "Yakult Co." and called simply "Aloe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.99.111 (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008 Major article revamp

I've rewritten and referenced large chunks of the article. I've also removed spurious references and references that were not cited in the text. MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I read it over and, although I didn't compare it with previous versions, it looks pretty good (thanks for all the work). Would be nice to expand a bit on its cultural significance: for example as a crossword puzzle word, houseplant (I know we have some, but I was thinking of things like how common it is and its folk remedy status which is notable quite aside from whether it is scientifically sound or not), perhaps heraldy (although be careful about A. vera versus Aloe rubrolutea and perhaps others which are not identifiable to species - there's a mention at [3]), art ([4], [5], and [6]), and even toilet paper). Obviously, the above is just rough notes and suggestions, and I haven't done the work of figuring out exactly how to work them into the article and source them properly (and what goes here versus at Aloe). Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

OK, This could be a really fantastic article but has a ways to go yet...starting from the top down...

guidelines have it that the lead is a summary of salient points which are covered in greater detail later in the article.

Thus - to satisfy this - the description info needs to be replicated and exapnded upon in a description section. I would also place all the alternate names in the taxonomy section, and maybe mention onyl the most important in the lead. taxo section should have who first described it and where (Linnaeus in the plantae thing i think?), as well as listing subspecies.

Mycorrhiza section soundes interesting. More on ecology, what eats it in the wild? Any organisms? The gallery should be removed to wikipeida commons, and images placed next to relevant text as the article grows. This is just something to start on. The medicine bit will be tricky and I will have to think on it. useing peer reviewed medical journals is a good place to start. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Those one-sentence sections/subsections look dreadful, one reason I decided against reviewing this. jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (well, mainly fixed). MidgleyDJ (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aloe vera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article for GA and will post comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA initial review

I have done some minor copyediting throughout the article, mainly punctuation, the odd typo, MoS violation and some very slight re-phrasings. I have prepared below a list of further points of detail which will require attention. In addition to these, there are three main areas of concern that I have.

• 1. At times, the language is pretty inaccessible to anyone who is not a botanist, or has not received a scientific training. This is not so all the way through, but it occurs in some of the sections. I have indicated some specific examples of this in my list of points. This article has the potential to be of interest to readers outside the natural scientist community, but it needs to be made more comprehensible to them.

• 2. The structure of the article is inappropriate, with far too many very short sections and subsections. These need to combined together in a smaller number of generic sections. Single-sentence paragraphs should also be avoided.

• 3. The references list lacks consistency and clarity. Book sources need to show author, title, publisher, year and place of publication, and ISBN where appropriate. References should be to pages or short page ranges, not to the whole book. Journal sources should give article author, the full name of the journal, date and/or issue number, and pages where the article is found. The formats should be consistent, and easily comprehensible. You don’t have to use cite book or cite journal, but the information must be there. I am also concerned by the tendency in the text to use long reference strings, sometimes 4 or even 5 together. This is unnecessary over-referencing – one or two decent sources should be enough for any referable statement.

• My list of specific points as follows:-
  • Lead
    • Overall, I don’t think that the lead summarises the entire article, which is the purpose of the lead section as defined in WP:Lead

      ✔ Done. Expanded lead. MidgleyDJ (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    • "0 AD" isn’t a real date and should not be represented as such. You could say "the beginning of the first century AD" or something similar, but not 0 AD

      ✔ Done. Date changed and suggestion above used.

    • You should introduce the abbreviation "A. vera" before starting to use it in the text.

      � How should this be done? It's pretty much standard form to reduce the genus name to a single letter in this fashion for any binomial name. Certainly in scientific writing the rule is spell it out the first time, thereafter use the abbreviated genus. MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      I've had a look at Banksia brownii, a featured plant article, and this seems to be the norm there too. Is this ok? MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      • Yes, leave it; it was only a very minor point. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Taxonomy and etymology
    • Not all the synonyms you list are found in [1]

      ✔ Done. Oops. Fixed, added second reference for the remainder. MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Do not use boldface within your text except as section headings. Use italics for emphasis (MoS)

      � I only used boldface for alternative article names. I thought this was normal? Again, I'd welcome a workaround. MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      • Your alternative article name, "Medicinal aloe" is fine in bold. I am referring to the list, beginning with "Chinese aloe", in the taxonomy section. This should not be in bold. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

        ✔ Done. MidgleyDJ (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Avoid single sentence paragraphs

      ✔ Done.

  • Distribution
    • The statement that the plant has been widely cultivated at least since the 15th century seems at odds with the lead, which talks about 0 AD and quotes John’s Gospel
    • The statements in the 2nd sentence don’t seem to be supported by [1], which appears to consist mainly of a bibliography.

      � The annotated map at the African Flowering Plants Database suggests that A. vera is present in the countries listed in the second sentence. MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      • Unfortunately, the map doesn't identify the countries you name, which is a problem for geographical ignoramuses like me. But I suppose I can just about work out that the P symbols are clustered in North Africa and some islands, and relate this to your text Don't worry about it any more. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Cultivation: This section is too short to be subdivided into three. The text needs to be combined under a single heading. Also, note the 15thC reference again.

    ✔ Done. Merged into one section. Removed date. MidgleyDJ (talk)

  • Cropping: This is a single-sentence subsection. Also, why is a string of five references necessary?

    � The five references variously list countries where A. vera is farmed commercially. I'd welcome suggestions on how to change this? MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    • • You list 6 countries: Australia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, India, Kenya and South Africa. Ref [31] refers to Cuba; [32] to USA (but appears dead); [33] to Kenya; [34] to India; and [35] to Australia. So the refs don't relate sequentially to your list of countries, and Dominican Republic and South Africa have no references. If you can sort this out, I'd advise that you cite each country individually, e.g Australia[35], Cuba[32], etc - rather than having an elongated string. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

        ✔ Done. MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Mycorrhiza: Another single-sentence section with, for the general reader, an incomprehensible title and equally incomprehensible text.

    ✔ Done. Merged into description, simplified and further explained. MidgleyDJ (talk)

• • Anthropogenic uses
    • Similar difficulties in comprehension.
    • Also, the phrase "A. vera has been variously used for:-" is an untidy way to introduce subsections.

      ✔ Done. Removed introductory sentence. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Only the Medicine subsection is long enough and detailed enough to be a subsection on its own. The others should either be expanded, or collected together as a single entity.

      ✔ Done. Merged. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Medicine: the 6thC reference again conflicts with the lead

    � Need to better explain this. The dating of A. vera use is ambiguous.... eg. aloes is mentioned in the bible and while many cosmetic/new age companies make the link with A. vera it is not clear whether A. vera is the species being discussed. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Antimicrobial properties and Biologically active compounds subsections both use specialist language and will be difficult for the general reader to follow.

    � I've merged the former into medicine. Will simplify when I do a whole article edit for specialist language. Included links to articles eg: antifungal, antibacterial as I don't see a way around this. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am putting the article "on hold" for seven days, to enable these issues to be worked out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know via my talkpage when your edits are complete. Things are looking pretty good, so far. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no editing has taken place for several days, I am assuming that amendments are complete. I will complete the review first thing in the morning (23rd)

I'll try and edit the language tonight to make the article more accessible. I've not had a chance to get to the other revisions. MidgleyDJ (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review, final comments

As more than seven days have now passed since my original review, and as I am going away for a few days, I have to deal with this now. Returning to the three main points which I raised at the start of the main review:-

1. The article is still quite difficult to read in parts, due to the use of unfamiliar language and terms. However, I do understand that an article like this is unlikely to be used for light reading; the reader will much more likely be seeking information, and in this respect it is important that the article is reliable and will stand examination from an expert in the field. I am not that expert, but I am reasonably confident, from the way it has been written and referenced, that the article would pass such an examination. I hope that further steps will be taken by the editors to improve general readability, but the GA promotion should not be held up on that basis.

2. The structure of the article has improved somewhat, with the disappearance of the numerous very short subsections and consequent consolidation of prose. It's a pity that there is still a one-line section at the end of the article, and that this information couldn't have been fitted into one of the other sections.

3. The formatting of references has been greatly improved. As to my comment about reference strings in the text, there are still too many of these, in my opinion. A combination of these, and the difficult text, makes for some really hard going.

All in all, however, I acknowledge the work that has gone into this article and believe that it meets the GA criteria. I will deal with the promotion now. Editors are invited, however, to continue improving it where they can. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead problems: medical section not accurately summd

The current lead is not summarizing the material presented in the section on the medical uses of Aloe v. As such the lead is POV. 124.169.84.247 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on this a bit? MidgleyDJ (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)