Talk:Himalayan salt/Archive 1

Archive 1

German article

The "Himalayan salt" comes from Pakistan and has nothing to do with the Himalaya. It is an esoteric fantasy name. See the German article [1].85.181.59.235 (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please propose changes to the article (with translations from German Wikipedia, as well as links to the original sources) here before making large-scale changes. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metals

The German Wikipedia article states that Himalayan salt contains heavy metals, such as mercury, lead, and cadmium. This analysis does show all three of these. Badagnani (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the German Wikipedia article say, that it contains 10 elements (ministrial source) and if it would contain really 84 elements (as Peter Ferreira asserts) than it would contains elements like mercury, lead or cadmium. But it does not. It is a normal salt without any differences to other salts (just the price is much higher).85.181.59.235 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sea salt (and all salt other than refined salt) also contains all those elements, including the heavy metals, though often in parts per million or parts per billion. Badagnani (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sea salt contains about 15 elements, but all salts (equally "Himalayan salt") contains 97-98 sodium chloride und just a very small part of other elements. 85.181.59.235 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely incorrect. I study sea salt and can assure you that all unrefined salts produced from evaporated seawater contain detectable amounts of up to 100 or more trace elements. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example: [2]. Badagnani (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WPFood assessment

Low importance C-class article, regional "health salts" with minimal impact on the global market.

This article needs attention in the following areas:

• Copy edit for spelling, punctuation and grammar.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for neutrality...

This article is a confusing combination of original research, or possibly fringe theories ("This is why pure sodium chloride causes problems for one's health which are not proven for the use of Himalayan salt"), commercialism, and even, apparently vandalism. ("Tommy is the original founder of Himilayan salt.') Piano non troppo (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pink color

Which elements does the pink color come from? Badagnani (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Iron(III) oxide. --85.181.52.220 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Health issue

• Natural Health News: Himalayan Salt FAD May Be a Health Risk

gioto (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not rock salt?

products.mercola.com/himalayan-salt/ This page] says it's produced in Nepal. But it also says it's not a form of rock salt. If it's not a form of rock salt, what is it, and why doesn't the page say what it is, if not a form of rock salt? Badagnani (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is rock salt, mined from the earth (rather than made by evaporating seawater), this should be stated in the article. Badagnani (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not Rocksalt (as in the stuff that is put on the roads), but it is salt from the mountains (as opposed to table salt that is chemically created or sea salt), so some companies might market it as rock salt or rock-based salt. Personally, I don't like the term because it confuses too many people... I think it should be left out to minimize confusion. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Section History

First of all I want to thank for assistance because my English is lousy and so I cannot write parts of the article myself. The article is much better now. Only the section "History" is IMHO still wrong. This salt is (generally) from Pakistan, so it cannot be formed in the foot of the Himalayan Mountains. There are no evidence that this salt was deemed as the “King of salt” and that it has ability to preserve meat at a longer duration than other salt. This are assertions of the sellers without attest. Because of that I would propose to erase the whole selection "Historie". --85.181.13.56 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right that "King of Salt" and meat preservation would need a reference. The same is done for marketers of the wolfberry, who claim that it was called "happy berry" in Chinese; no source has ever been found for that. Regarding the Himalayas, the article Himalayas does state that the system includes mountain ranges in other nearby countries, including Pakistan. Badagnani (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any source for the possibility that rock salt mined in Poland has been sold as "Himalayan salt"? Badagnani (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The working idea of how the salt veins got there is that packets of the ancient oceans around that area were caught in the tectonic plates as they rose up into the mountain range, the salt water (with all of its minerals) dried into the veins of salt, and that's how they came to be. Does that help clear up the confusion of how there is salt in the mountain? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

other language references in English article?

Okay, I am a little new to editing on Wiki, but I didn't think you could reference a page with a different language as a citation in an article. Two of the citations I have looked at were in German and I don't know enough German to be able to verify if the pages actually contain information cited or if they are even on the same topic. Can anyone clarify this for me? Burleigh2 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can reference a page with a different language. --85.181.47.227 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I have a stupid question... If people don't speak/read that language, how can they verify it's accuracy or proof? Do the rest of us just have to rely on those who speak the language to translate accurately? Burleigh2 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we just remove mention of the book?

How about we just remove mention of the book and its authors completely? I'm concerned about WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:OR issues with what little we have. I doubt that either reference is a WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons? How would that come into play with the book? Also, it is quite extensive in original and verifiable research... there is a reference section in the back of the book that is a few pages long of various books and sources that it came from. Why would it not be a reliable source? The bulk of the book is about the history of how salt has been used and lists dozens of uses for the salt (without saying it'll "cure everything that ails you") regardless of whether people think it works for certain ailments. I've read through it and the only claims it makes are general health claims (washing out the eyes or nasal cavity, helping to moisturize where the rinse is used, etc... all of which has been used for a long time and is recommended by various doctors in many cases). Personally, I think it's a good reference just for the uses of the salt and the history if nothing else. Burleigh2 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to any page of Wikipedia.

Are the two sources reliable? --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know the concepts and ideas of BLP would apply to every page, but this is about salt, not a biography about a person, which is why I was questioning what you meant on that. By having the mention of the book where I put it earlier (with the uses of the salt), I think it avoids the issue because the book is more about how to use the salt and the history of it. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking through the history on the page. Someone took off my edit of mentioning the book with the uses saying it was advertising... how is that advertising when listing the book as it is now (talking about the different analysis of the salt) isn't? I'm not sure if I'm confused or if whoever changed it is. If a consensus can't be reached, it would probably be best to just remove the mention altogether and not put it back in. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're referring to this [3] edit. I agree. The article is about Himalayan salt. Mentioning the book in passing that way comes across as a promotion for the book, rather than an expansion of the article. Does that make sense? --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking over it, I can see how it may look like that. Best to leave it out. Burleigh2 (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the mention of the book should be removed altogether. I accept that the claim that Peter Ferreira is Peter Druf needs a reliable source, and should go. However, Himalayan salt is basically a brand of salt, and the book is specifically related to and promotes this salt. So the claim in the book that the chemical composition is different should stay, with the correct context. It's the equivalent of Coke claiming Coke Light is good for you. Whether the Coke marketing pamphlet is factually reliable or not is not the point, rather it's reliable in the context of being related to the product and having made the claim. I'd value more research into the disputes about Druf and the Institute if someone can follow the trail in German. I personally can't find any mention online of this Institute, which would be very unusual if it did exist. Basically, the article, to be comprehensive, needs to make mention of the controversy around this salt. The differing views are basically that the salt is either fantastically healthy, or is being excessively and perhaps dubiously promoted. Greenman (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning "dubiously promoted": Stiftung Warentest calls the promotion of Himalayan salt "irreführend" (misleading) and "vorgetäuscht" (faked).[4] --85.181.15.247 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like something that should be in the article. An English translatation would be helpful, but not necessary, to get some context. --Ronz (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Without this book and the initial promotion by Druf, "Himalayan salt" would be unknown in the Western hemisphere. As such, they are an integral and essential aspect of this article. This does not yet become that clear in the article and I think the book / Druf section should be improved / extended to make this better understandable. Part of the problem seems to be that most sources are in German and/or are not available online. But there are enough online translation tools for those who want to check the references in more detail. Cacycle (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Greenman, just because the institute is mentioned in the book doesn't mean that the India Salt cite is unbiased and reliable. With no mention of it on the web, how do we know that it wasn't open and running in 2001 (when the mention in the book is listed) and closed later (lack of funding, moved, or changed the name)? That's like saying my uncle isn't a real person because he's not online yet... that is not verifiable proof. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

@Ronz: I´m German and my English is not so good. In Germany there had been many reports in Newspapers and TV abaut the "Himalayan salt" and this reports were all criticizing that this product is a deception. It is a completely normal table salt, mined far away from the himalaya in an industrial salt mine, without any special effect for the health. Also several offices of consumer protection (such as Bavarian State Office for Health and Food Safety or Consumer Center Baden-Württemberg) were warning against the promotion off this salt. It seems that there are no reports like this in English language. The only I now is this page that User:Gioto linked [5]. But this page is not a suitable source. If you want I can provide some German sources and I can translate those for you. But my English is not good enough to edit the article. Here is a machine translation by Google of the German Wikipedia article [6]. But it is a very bad translation. --85.181.48.156 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to help. Statements from consumer protection offices and other highly reliable sources would be very helpful. Could you provide links to the German articles plus a quick English summary? (Your English seems good). --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an article about Stiftung Warentest in the English Wikipedia, so I Think, this is a good source, because you can estimate yourself if this source is reliable.

English summary of [7]: Stiftung Warentest writes that consumers are fooled by statements of the book "Water and Salt". The very slight content of minerals/trace elements is nutritionally extraneous/not appreciable. Neither "higher structur" nor "energetic effects" are scientifically proved/revisable and therefore pure question of faith. But Himalayan salt consist - just like any other table salt - of 97 % of Sodium chloride and no faith can change this fact. (The title of the article means "Question of faith")

Tomorrow more. --85.181.48.156 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there are agencies that don't like how it's advertised, that doesn't change what the salt is. I see that like all the advertising that Acai will cure everything that ails you and make you lose lots of weight... there's no scientific proof, but it's a complaint about the advertising, not the product. There are still many people that call Acai a scam, but it's just a fruit that is sometimes marketed as part of a scam, but it doesn't make the berry itself a scam or something that's going to harm you. The main reason that people have told me they prefer to use it is because it's natural (vs chemically created table salts) and they prefer the more mild taste. From the sound of it, it's been more advertised in a few parts of Europe, which is where the complaints come into play. If we did include mention of this, it really should be listed in a separate section under "Advertising" or "Questionable methods of advertising", not under the basis of the salt itself. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Druf

Since someone reverted to the previous version with the statement about Peter Druf, is there any proof that it is a pseudonym for Peter Ferreira? The link given looks like the German version of Wikipedia (with editing options, so it could easily be changed by anyone) and I for one can't read German to verify what it says... I thought all citations had to be from reliable sources, not one that could be changed by anyone. Isn't this like citing another Wikipedia page? Without proof, that would be defamation and shouldn't be in the article. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My concerns exactly. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm new enough here where I'm not sure how an issue like the book would get resolved (to leave it out or leave some mention in)... is there a vote, or are comments made and someone makes a decision based on the majority? Burleigh2 (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DR gives a list of ways to go about resolving disputes. Because there's a BLP issue, the information probably should be removed immediately. I'll go ahead with that. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Thanks for guiding me along on this. Until now, I've been the one entering new info into controversial topics. LOL! Burleigh2 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a better website that will translate larger scripts? The link that supposedly proves the link between Druf and Ferriera is too long for the translators I'm using to cover it (including BabelFish), so I can't verify any proof of what they're saying (if it's suspect or if it's validated facts). Does anyone have a translation website we can use that doesn't have a limitation of words or characters? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to user 85, I was able to bring up the link that shows the link between them (thanks to Google Translate, too). The page it refers to is just a link page, but the link referring to the salt is ONLY referring to the salt... the names Druf, Peter, or Ferriera are never mentioned, nor is the book Water & Salt. I have removed the mention of Peter's supposed double identity because it doesn't say anything about it. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the other links listed with that one link, I looked at the others. The second link on there mentions Druf "Peter Ferreira, born Druf", but has no citation or proof (there is no mention of Druf in the article that is referenced, which was the first part I looked at in the note above). That looks like first-hand research (or just randomly putting something in there and hoping nobody checks it) and isn't verifiable by Wiki's guidelines, so I'm still deleting that part. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "non-existent Himalaya Institute of Biophysical Research" referenced in the book?

I have this book and I can't find reference to this lab that supposedly doesn't exist. When I looked on Yahoo, there are several other websites that seem to use exactly the script that's used in this article, but none lend a reference to the original source. Can anyone point to a page number or a section I can verify in? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the page that is cited in this article (which is just a page bashing the product) and the reference that they use to cite that the facility doesn't exist is to a non-existent page. In other words, there is no citing for their statement and I can find no mention of this facility in the book. Until I can find some proof that the book references this institute, I'm removing that clip from the article... if it's in the book and someone can point where so it can be verified, we can put that part back in. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the passage about the book is dispensable. If the book show a different analysis of the chemical composition of Himalayan salts and don´t reference any source, it is unusable for this article.--85.181.47.227 (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry reverted back, should have read here first!!gioto (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the user 85. (not sure what to call someone identified with a number, sorry), but the book does have a lot of in depth info about Himalayan Crystal Salt and deserves to be mentioned as a resource at least. Burleigh2 (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Page 129 of the book (English edition) states "The Institute of Biophysical Research has implemented an extensive study under the guidance of Peter Ferreira". Greenman (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just grabbed my copy of the book (English version, ISBN 978-3-9523390-0-8)... page 129 talks about the vibration frequencies of various things in the human body. There is no mention of the Institute at all. It looks like you have a different version of the book.Burleigh2 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Peter Ferreira (Mr. Ferreira is the director of the Institute for Biophysical Research) This Institute is mentioned here [8] as being in Germany and the following [9] makes for an interesting read. gioto (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[snip edit: nevermind about the name... it's a different Institute than the Vegas one, but the rest of my statement is still a valid point] ...a web search turned up nothing. Why would they have to have a website? There are some companies that have no phone systems (or no listing in the phone book) because they wouldn't take incoming calls or only work through regular mail or E-mail. It doesn't mean they don't exist necessarily... I'm going to do further research on this. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I got some info back on my research. We have a few items from Barbara Hendel (including the book, which is how I've found out a lot of information about this) and I've heard back that the Institute was a project that Peter did, but Dr. Hendel (and all salt-related things) are no longer associated with him. The only reason his name is on the book is because of copyright law... because he was involved and the copyright is put on the whole book, she couldn't legally take his name off. In other words, Peter is no longer associated with the salt except where Copyright law requires his name be associated and should not be held against the product because he helped author a book about it. Similar things could be said about books that Kevin Trudeau has written about various items and topics, but that's a whole different story. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose because Dr. Hendel has severed ties with Peter that we just delete the reference to the book completely as has already been suggested by other members. Burleigh2 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

An Institute of Biophysical Research does not exist in Germany and Peter Druf (pseudonym: Ferreira) is not a scientist but a fraudster wanted by the police. You can read this all in the german article. 85.181.55.91 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead Sea Salt removed as a "See Also" item?

This brings up a good point that I hadn't really thought about until someone took it off... should Dead Sea Salt be under a "related topic"? What about Sea Salt and Celtic Salt? I mean, they are all related as far as being types of salts and they are related... Why not have all of those types as "See Also"? Burleigh2 (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nepal or Pakistan?

Some sourcesproducts.mercola.com/himalayan-salt/ state that it is produced in Nepal. Badagnani (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is from the Salt Range in Pakistan. It is a completely normal salt without any therapeutic benefit. It is a cheat and you should not distribut this esoteric nonsense. 85.181.59.235 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Number one, the source states that the individual procured it from Pakistan. Number two, it is possible that what is sold as "Himalayan salt" may have more than one point of origin. Pink salt is also produced in the U.S. state of Utah and falsification may of course occur. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Himalayan mountains span across a few different countries and the salt mines span that difference. There is a major mine in Pakistan and I've heard there is one in China and other neighboring countries... not all sources are going to be from Pakistan. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in Germany we have "Himalayan salt" with origin of Poland but the most of the salt with this name comes from Pakistan. In the himalayan region they dont have salt at all. In Germany there are official warnings of ministries because of this salt. It is a cheat and has no positiv effects for the health.85.181.59.235 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If specific companies selling "Himalayan salt" can be shown, with valid sources, to be fraudulently passing off salt that is not from the Himalaya Mountains as "Himalayan salt," this information should be added to the article, with sources. Are there sources showing that the Himalaya Mountains (and/or foothills) do not possess any deposits of rock salt? Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. There are companies that get a raw material from somewhere, then have it shipped to another country to process it so it can legally be listed as "product of __" or "made in __" for marketing. Granted, that's not a very good marketing practice to me, but it happens with some of the more sketchy companies... or those where the nearest processing plant is across the border just a few miles from where the raw material is procured. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Himalayan salt" is NEVER from the Himalaya Mountains. It can not be of from the Himalaya Mountains because they dont have any salt there at all! 85.181.59.235 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You were asked "Are there sources showing that the Himalaya Mountains (and/or foothills) do not possess any deposits of rock salt?" You did not answer this. Badagnani (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced: Nepal has no salt deposits

It appears as if Mercola is deceiving the public when stating that his salt comes from Nepal (unless he means that it is produced elsewhere and simply resold, and purchased by him, in Nepal. See [10]. Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://ngs.org.np/web/about-us/238-kpkaphle which states that Nepal does have salt mines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.219.160 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also see http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/384/Nation/14430 which talks extensively about native salt in Nepal, which is does not have iodine. It is the reason that the Nepalese import salt from India.

Also see the film, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalaya_(film) which is a realistic drama, depicting the story of how Nepalese natives take their salt crystals down the mountain, once a year for trade.

These are consistent with Mercola's claim of how difficult it was to get the Nepalese salt. products.mercola.com/himalayan-salt/ (search for "Nepal"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.219.160 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourced: Tibet is a producer of rock salt

It appears that your unsourced assertion was incorrect. Tibet has long produced rock salt, using it domestically as well as exporting it. See [11]. Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Health Benefits

Several websites suggest that these salt lamps can help alleviate symptoms of allergies and asthma due to some sort of ion neutralization. The only scholarly article I found on the subject is here [12], but I was surprised Wikipedia didn't have anything to say on the subject. For something purportedly known for centuries, as several of these sites, including the linked scholarly article, assert, there should be some mention of said benefits. Circ (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Link pops open a pdf titled Exposure to illuminated salt lamp increases 5-HT metabolism: A serotonergic perspective to its beneficial effects, written by Hajra Naz* and Darakhshan J Haleem at the Neurochemistry and Biochemical Neuropharmacology Research Unit, Department of Biochemistry, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circ (talk • contribs) 04:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding Salt Lamp section

FYI, I'm merging the Himalayan Salt Lamp page into this one per the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salt_lamp#Type_and_color If anyone knows how to merge them within the editing system in Wiki (aside from copy/paste like I'm doing), please feel free to do that instead... until then, I'm merging it in the only way I know how because it's such a short snippet. Burleigh2 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it improve the article to add information about Ionization if a reliable source can be found? Also at what heat is necessary for Ionization to occur. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

If you have information to add, please add it... there are enough editors on each of these files that if it's spam or whatnot, it would be removed, but if it's good info, it'll stay on. That is the way of Wiki. ;-)Burleigh2 (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I have some information about the Ionization of salt lamps I am just trying to determine which is the most reliable source a lot of pages trying to sell Salt Lamps. DavidR2010 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I keep finding sources with good information on Ionization but then they have a link to places to shop for salt lamps I want to place information about the Ionization effects of Himalayan salt however I don't want to appear to be selling salt lamps at the same time any suggestions? I did find one source here http://www.chamberofcommerce.pl/ionization/ DavidR2010 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Its a good source with information about Ionization and yet they don't have the best things to say about Himalayan salt Ionization which concerns me as they are a Polish site and may be trying to increase sales of the European Salt Lamps.DavidR2010 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I found another source as well here http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-salt-lamp.htm it looks like the ads on this page are added by google. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DaviR2010

The only problem with these sources would be the lack of citation and sources... it could be anyone writing these as just random thoughts or it may be that they got some of their info from Wiki and are BS-ing the rest.Burleigh2 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's another one of my concerns too DavidR2010 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I cant really find any good info about health benefits of Salt Lamps. Seems all we know for sure is that when heated the rocks produce negative Ions. DavidR2010 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I removed some more unsourced information about negative ions and their purported health benefits, and added a citation to a web site that aims to debunk this myth. Jpp42 (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi Salt

The salt is mined from Punjab and dont know why it is named Himalayan_salt. Himalaya is 300 kilometers away from its mines in Punjab. It is requested to use the name from where it is mined. Punjabi salt is appropriate and the present heading should be replaced with the Punjabi salt name.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a marketing term for the salt being sold in Europe and elsewhere. The start of the artcle does make this fairly clear.--FDent (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of *marketing term* to categorize the term *Himalayan salt*

The first sentence's use of the word *marketing* before *term* is misleading.

The person who undid my removal of the word said this: "It's mined in the Punjab, so Himalaya can only accurately be described as a marketing term."

This conclusion is wrong for three reasons:

1. When a term refers to a thing from one region but is named for another nearby, it is a logical fallacy (appeal to probability; also, a fallacy of exclusive premises) to conclude that the sole reason for this has to be that it was created by advertisers. (a) The term *could* have been created by advertisers, but that does not mean it *was*; (b) The term refers to the Himalayas, and the salt is mined in the Salt Region, but it does not follow without proof that, because the term seems inaccurate, the discrepancy *must have been created by advertisers*.

2. "http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/438805/Pakistan": "The Himalayas . . . form the northern rampart of the subcontinent, and their western ranges occupy the entire northern end of Pakistan." People draw false distinctions between Pakistan and the Himalayas and the use of *marketing* feeds this idea, particularly since the article stresses that the salt "is mined in Pakistan" to discount the idea it is mined in the Himalayas.

3. Since the only term by which this specifically sourced pink salt is known is *Himalayan salt*, the notion that it is solely a marketing term is therefore false. *Marketing* suggests that the *only* sources which use the term are advertisements and discussions about advertising.

If a contributor can show etymologically that term was originally created by advertisers, then they should add a section to the entry which shows this. A contributor could say that the area is referred to as the "Salt Range" and is next to the Himalayas and add the *theory* that the term was created by advertisers, but to do so legitimately, they'd have to quote a legitimate source.

If the facts presented suggest the possibility that marketing *might* be the source of the term, then the reader is free to draw their own conclusion and no pejorative is needed.

That's why the word *marketing* should be deleted from the first sentence.

However, the following article (which is too anecdotal to use as a source) makes mention of what might be the first use of the term by a marketer, and if the idea is substantiated, a section of the article could suggest there is reason to consider it: http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/salt-may-be-health-scam.html

This is the book by Peter Ferreira which is alluded to in the article as being full of false claims. It was published in 2003; the article claims Ferreira began selling and lecturing about Himalayan salt in "the '90s": http://www.amazon.com/Water-Salt-Essence-Healing-Nature/dp/B001DVZMW6

Sepium Gronagh (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Fails to discuss whether healthy or not

PRACTICAL information seems conspicuously missing. How is it different from the usual table salt we buy from the grocer and use? Is it healthy? Unhealthy? And WHY? If a recipe calls for it, is it just a pompous, pretentious recipe, or is there some taste difference or advantage? Then we read it's "contaminated" by other chemicals, leaving the reader hanging as to whether this is a significant factor in making a dietary decision. Others' talking points infer (it seems) that this salt is little different from the usual (save for the possibly fluoride contaminated); whatever the case, an evaluation of health benefits or risks—and how it differs from ordinary, usual types of table salt—should be addressed. 73.8.106.145 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)ChicagoLarry~commonswiki

While I agree that this information could be useful, the challenge is finding third-party reliable sources that can be used to support any statements. I tried searching, and found several sources of marginal (at best) reliability - but they disagreed on several points. Some claim there are potential health benefits (lower sodium and higher potassium levels); while others claim the sole reason for lower sodium is that the larger granules (compared to common table salt) have more space between them, so a teaspoon of each would contain more air space - so you could get the same result just be using less table salt. As for the potassium difference, it's so slight as to be meaningless (the amount you would need to consume to see a benefit from the potasium would be offset by the increase in sodium). The sources also disagree on taste difference between the two (some claiming no difference, others claiming a very subtle difference when consumed by itself, but so subtle it's lost when mixed with virtually any other foods).

The only things I could find sources to agree on was that the pinkish Himalayan Salt can be useful for adding color to a dish where the grains are added on top; and that different sized crystals can serve different purposes (common table salt will stick better to surfaces, while larger crystals can add crunch or garnishing appearance to the top of whatever it's added onto) - but if you desire the larger crystals, you're still back to disagreement from the sources on differences between the different larger-crystal options.

There might be better sources out there somewhere than what I found (granted, I didn't dig very deep). So maybe someone else can find a source that could meet WP:RS criteria in a journal of some sort? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Salt Cave Therapy" has been used for thousands of years, especially in Europe. A recent paper has revealed why the therapy may provide health benefits and explains how it may work:

Salt Cave Therapy: Rediscovering the Benefits of an Old Preservative, by Sala Horowitz, PhD (2015).

"Hippocrates is said to have recognized the therapeutic benefits of salt mines...Health benefits have been attributed to the caves' unique microclimate, which is rich in natural salt microns and ions...In the 1980s, the Russians began to build halochambers lined with halite, which mimicked the microclimate of salt caves. With increased scientific attention, such chambers became certified as medical devices in Russia, and are said to have been adapted for use by the Russian space agency in microclimate optimization devices used by cosmonauts."

— Sala Horowitz, http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/act.2010.16302

Here's another paper, which also talks about salt particles in the air:

Salt: Good for What Ails the Airways?, by William D. Bennett, Journal of Aerosol Medicine. February 2009.

And finally, there is the wiki page for Halotherapy, which shows photos of the caves and mentions the "Effective treatment of asthma and respiratory diseases" from breathing in the air from the unique red salt mines in Belarus.

It seems to me that the research is out there and Halotheraphy has been fairly well studied in many European countries. The one citation given to dismiss salt lamps is just some blogger who says she couldn't find any evidence. She obviously didn't look very hard. I think that dismissing citation should be removed.Drichman39 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article, which is about salt, not salt caves or halotherapy. Applying an article about a salt cave environment to a garnish or lamp would be an original synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I seem to have put my comment in the wrong section. However, there is actually a section in this wiki article about salt lamps, and the article dismisses the lamps without acknowledging that there is research behind them67.255.231.116 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

What research? VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your second article is behind a paywall. Not even the abstract is available. 75.111.5.233 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Location from Lahore

@Zefr, AlphaAce, Sbmeirow, and Jytdog: What do you think about this edit? Is it supported by source? It seems trivial to me. Orientls (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Distance from Himalayas (KEEP), because it clarifies this salt isn't coming from the actual Himalayan mountain range. 190 miles is a significant distance. The distance from Lahore isn't as important, and I don't have an issue with Lahore being removed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm unable to see the entire Weller article where the salt and its distance from the mountain range (to enable the name) specifically discussed. Note the source is from 1928, when the "himalayan" emphasis of the salt would not exist. "Himalayan" is purely a marketing term to suggest remoteness and supposed uniqueness, and trying to make the point that the salt is close to the mountains stretches the truth. I regard the mention of distances and origin dubious and trivial at best, and feel it shouldn't be included. --Zefr (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit is silly. We should however be linking to the Salt Range and the content should say a bit about the Salt Range =/= Himalayas. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Primary source

Also, I notice the use of this source. It appears to mainly be a primary source. For example, a news story about the FDA warning would be a secondary source. So would not using a primary source be a violation of Wikipedia:MEDRS? VR _talk 01:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a MEDRS claim. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As thorough reviews of products and labeling/advertising violations influencing regulatory status and consumer guidance, FDA warning letters by the Offices of Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations are a high-standard source for a pseudoscience topic. As a government scientific body, they are included among authority organizations in WP:MEDSCI. --Zefr (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If no reliable secondary sources have paid attention to the claims mentioned by the FDA, then it lacks significance for the article. Note the letter also says the company made false claims about the benefits of iodine, yet there's no mention of it in that article. TFD (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. At most, that source could belong in an article about that company.VR _talk 15:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The FDA warning letter zeroes in on dispelling the consumer deception the manufacturer attempted to create by claiming Himalayan salt products could alleviate several diseases. As in any systematic review addressing multiple topics on a medical topic, the letter serves as an example of how regulatory compliance is important for keeping in check a purveyor of pseudoscience and dubious products advertised with false claims of benefit. The FDA uses such a letter as an example of impending penalties and a warning to other manufacturers and advertisers of similar products, making it absolutely relevant to this article. --Zefr (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Zefr. WP:PRIMARY does not mean self-published, nor bad. I find it concerning that we're trying to dismiss this from mention. This is an authoritative source. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr:: TFD for example, points out that the FDA letter criticizes many different health claims made, including those relating to iodine. Yet, we wouldn't just go to iodine and mention every FDA latter ever sent regarding iodine related claims, right? But on the other hand, if there was a news article talking about exaggerated iodine claims, we'd mention that. In this case we do have several secondary sources talking about pink salt not having any proven health benefits. So lets use those instead of primary sources?VR _talk 01:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

See Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Do articles about Himlayan salt typically mention this case? No, they never mention it. Typical cherry picking. We think that this information should be included even though writers on the subject do not. The article provides the impression that the salt is normally sold as quack medicine, when in fact people buy it because they like the appearance and chefs recommend it. TFD (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's anything but a minor aspect, and the sources on this topic tend to be poor and promotional.

The article provides the impression that the salt is normally sold as quack medicine If that's the case, it probably should be corrected.

in fact people buy it because they like the appearance and chefs recommend it Sources? This sounds like just an evolution in how it's marketed. We need to take care not simply become another mouthpiece for their marketing, which has been a major problem with this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a minor aspect in the sense that no one reliable source have mentioned it. What you and I find important sometimes differs from what writers of reliable sources think and we may disagree with each other. In order to resolve this Wikipedia has policies on weight. Essentially, articles are supposed to reflect the weight of content in reliable sources, not what editors think the weight should be.

See "Salt of the earth: Chef Mark McEwan demystifies the all-natural salt trend": "The spark of interest was first ignited by chefs, and now, their dynamism and creativity combining "unconventional salts" with their creations has tricked down to the general populace." The chef explains how to use these different salts in cooking. There's nothing on the labels of Himalayan salt I have seen touting health benefits. I paid $1.50 for a Himalayan 380 salt mill. I can't see any difference with refined salt (but I'm not a chef), but it looks good and should last a long time.

TFD (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you address my concerns? The source you provide is a puff piece, though not as bad as some that have been used in this article, but hard to find anything --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a puff piece, it's an article by Tiffany Leigh, who writes about "fashion, beauty, style and culture," is a contributor to Forbes Vogue, Fashion Magazine, and The Huffington Pos and has been published by "Bloomberg Pursuits, Playboy, Departures, Travel + Leisure, American Way, Food & Wine Magazine, BlackBook Magazine, and more." What kind of sources do you expect on the subject of cooking with salt? TFD (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking closer. Forbes contributor-written articles are considered unreliable, so I don't think we should be using this for anything.

What kind of sources do you expect on the subject of cooking with salt? But that's my point. We expect SOAP and NOTNEWS. When we have an FDA statement to use, I think we should be using it. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

On the initial point of this conversation - whether the FDA warning letter is a primary source not usable in the article - every FDA public statement represents the collective science of the organization, in a manner similar to public statements by the CDC, World Health Organization, or American Heart Association (example statements shown); these are public organizations whose statements are considered and used widely as a high standard in WP:MEDRS. As collective information, it is a tertiary source. There is nothing more to debate about the warning letter on Himalayan salt: it is authoritative and rigorous in background, valid as criticism, and used to represent one sentence to refute health claims common in the public. Rigorous independent research on the uses or possible health value of Himilayan salt aren't available because there is no research funding on something so scientifically trivial, and consequently there are no peer-reviewed papers on the salt listed with PubMed. --Zefr (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, no reliable secondary sources report the allegations that you mention. Zefr, your primary source refers to the claims of one company. The same company makes false claims about iodine, yet you do not edit that article to mention the claim. Why don't you tell readers that false health claims for iodine have been made? I assume the reason is that they are insignificant compared with the bulk of claims made about iodine. Incidentally, a letter from a government office is not a tertiary source, although your argument is interesting. TFD (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you can have your opinion, or if it's important for you to dig deeper, take up FDA warning letters as tertiary sources with the MEDRS community at WT:MED. A tertiary source is defined as "textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources", which is the scientific and regulatory knowledge the FDA criminal offices have as a foundation for an FDA warning letter. As with any comprehensive review of a regulatory issue, the FDA letter on products by the company in violation, Herbs of Light Inc., addresses numerous topics, among which Himalayan salt is the focus of this article, not iodine or cat's claw among others mentioned in the letter. Himalayan salt is why we're here, so I prefer to keep discussion topic-focused. Pardon me, but this topic has been sufficiently covered, and I will not be debating it further. --Zefr (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't see any reason to continue at this point. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Zefr, sorry if I was not clear. It is not an issue of reliability but of weight. They are different policies. TFD (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Before I post to NPOVN, I would like to note that the 2013 letter from the FDA does not say that the claims by Hearts of Light are false, but that they had not been approved and their products were adulterated.[13] TFD (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am with TFD on this. It would be one thing if we had an FDA report that generically summarized the data on the health benefits of Himalayan salt and concluded there are none proven, but this is simply a warning letter sent to one specific company about their illegal product labeling and marketing practices regarding a whole list of dietary supplements, among which were Himalayan salt tablets. It seems rather indiscriminate, and not very informative about Himalayan salt, to mention that the FDA chastised some two-bit dietary supplement manufacturer.

As I mentioned at FT/N, I also think the focus is out of whack, particularly in the lede, which is 1/4 description and 3/4 refutation of health claims (it should probably be the other way around), and the lede says nothing about its uses (food additive, cooking or serving platform, dietary supplements, lamps and as I learn tonight from Time Magazine [14], spa salt chambers, nor does it mention the distinctive pink color most people associate with it. All you come out of the lede knowing is that it is Pakistani salt that absolutely does not by any stretch of the imagination have any of the health benefits that have been attributed to it, no it doesn't indeed. It all seems rather disproportionate.

Ronz asked for a source for people using it because it is pink and chef's recommending it: an article in The Atlantic [15] addresses the social phenomenon, including the aesthetics of its distinctive color as a primary draw that also allowed it to be 'branded' and fetishized. (The article provides no support for chef's recommending it.) Agricolae (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Agricolae: Go ahead and revise the lede about its uses. The absence of solid scientific literature on Himalayan salt is evidence that the topic is a WP:NFRINGE pseudoscience issue with little credible WP:WEIGHT; that's why it is a C-class article not having one peer-reviewed core reference. --Zefr (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet, I did exactly that. I revised the lead about its uses, using that Atlantic article among others. Ronz reverted my changes and Zefr supported the reversion of my changes. I asked for a discussion of my changes above and am still waiting for that to happen.VR _talk 16:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Since when is science the only basis for weight? or peer reviewed references the only criteria for article quality? Our article on the Kit Kat bar doesn't have any peer-reviewed journal articles either. Yes, the health claims are pseudoscientific nonsense, but that doesn't mean that the topic of Himalayan salt thereby runs afoul of NFRINGE. While I agree that the article is C-quality (or maybe even Start), my assessment has nothing to do with the absence of peer-reviewed sources from what is essentially a culinary and lifestyle fad and not an academic topic at all. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Separation of consumption and decoration

The previous version of the article conflates consumption of Himalayan salt with its usage in "salt lamps". Specifically it said:

there is no scientific evidence that it is healthier than common table salt; such claims are considered pseudoscience.

This is misleading because two of the sources cited are about the claim that Himalayan salt lamps have medical benefits - not about the claim that Himalayan salt is healthier than table salt. Its misleading to clump these claims together.

Secondly, the sources go into a depth comparison of Himalayan salt and table salt. That was mysteriously removed here even though it uses the very same sources as before. If those sources are unreliable than remove them too.

Thirdly, this isn't a purely scientific discussion. Himalayan salt does have cultural/aesthetic value. So do Himalayan salt lamps. Its not clear why an NPOV statement like "many find such lamps aesthetically pleasing" was removed. Its not a scientific statement.VR _talk 01:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion.

I've requested help at WP:FTN because of the nature of your request, that ArbCom enforcement applies, the history of this article.

My initial impression is that I believe we can easily find additional sources, if needed, to address all concerns. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In the past I added text and references, but later other people reworded or moved text, so it's possible the current text doesn't match the references. When it comes to the internet, it should be noted there are numerous wacky health claims about both: 1) H.S. consumption, and 2) H.S. salt lamps. I agree that H.S. in all forms is pretty, but I disagree about numerous "magical" health claims. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to have been a lot of further discussion on the lead changes that I made. Neither here, not at FTN. The only user who responded at FTN, Agricolae, agrees the lede should be expanded with some of the info I added. Sbmeirow agrees with the inclusion of the aesthetic aspects of the salt (correct me if I'm wrong). So I'm inclined to revert my changes back.VR _talk 16:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think the lede should be expanded a little (and that the part about no scientific foundation/pseudoscience be expressed in a more compressed form to represent a lesser proportion). However, I think your edits inserted way too much - the lede should be a stripped down summary of the article, not contain details not found in the body, where much of your content would be better placed (if appropriately referenced). It is salt from Pakistan, perhaps best known for the distinctive pink color caused by mineral impurities; it is primarily used in cooking, food preparation and presentation, and home decoration; health claims about its benefits have no foundation. Three or four sentences total. I think the percent mineral content is a body detail, not lede material. Comparison of taste with table salt, likewise (and I am not comfortable with citing The Atlantic for some claiming a different taste, when what it says is more nuanced). Likewise, aesthetics are more more body material than lede (unless you can find a very elegant way to incorporate it - a 'some people find it aesthetically pleasing' statement just isn't summary-worthy). Finally, your attempts to separate the various aspects of health claims (regarding what uses) seem too convoluted to get into in the lede. Maybe, after seeing a more detailed discussion of this in the body I would change my mind, but I would say keep the lede summary a non-specific rejection, and let the body do the work. Were this article 30,000 bytes, then amore extensive lede would be called for, but your lede was similar in page-space length and detail to the body, and included much not found in the body, which is not how a lede is supposed to work. If you want to move this forward, don't just restore, or you will just be reverted again. There should be nothing in the lede that is not in the body, so work on incorporating the aspects of the topic you think are important into the body, and we will have a better idea what the lede needs to summarize. Agricolae (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

your attempts to separate the various aspects of health claims (regarding what uses) seem too convoluted to get into in the lede

What my issue using references that say "salt lamp claims are pseudoscience" to say or imply "salt in food claims are pseudoscience." That's what the lead currently does did until recently. Its a gross misrepresentation of the sources. There are sources that attack the nutritional claims. Use them. Don't use the ones that only attack salt lamps to attack nutritional claims. Does that make sense?

not contain details not found in the body

That seems to be a stylistic concern, right? Usually, with articles that are works in progress you will have times where material will need to be shuffled around. That's a reason to edit upon my edits, not to simply blindly revert anything and everything I write.

unless you can find a very elegant way to incorporate it Sure we can phrase it differently, but, again that seems like a stylistic concern. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

If you want to move this forward, don't just restore, or you will just be reverted again. I honestly don't see how blindly reverting everything some adds is helpful. If there's certain things you don't think should be in the lede, sure remove them. Or move them around. Or rephrase them.VR _talk 19:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate source for use of Himalayan salt as cookware?

Is this source appropriate for adding material on the use of Himalayan Salt as cookware? Its lists as its author "Williams - Sonoma Test Kitchen", and the Williams-Sonoma company does seem to have experience in the field of cookware. Please note, I'm not asking if this is source is appropriate for making health claims - I know its not.VR _talk 20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And what about using this one for culinary uses of Himalayan salt? The author, Mark Bitterman, is a food writer.VR _talk 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In Google books - searchable, if needed. Also, this Reuters interview, by a different Bitterman. --Zefr (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Zefr. Though what do you mean "by a different Bitterman"? The Reuters interview is by Mark Bitternman (the interviewer is Barbara Goldberg), who appears to be the same Mark Bitterman.VR _talk 16:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I never liked this type of reference use, as it doesn't indicate noteworthiness. A review of this book in a WP:RS venue, or even a passing mention in an article or book about a broader subject, would better demonstrate that this is 'a thing' beyond the author's own personal whims in publishing a book of recipes. (And no to Williams-Sonoma: COI - that this book is promoting the use of their own kitchenware product distorts its frame of reference). Agricolae (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair point about a vendor promoting its own product. That would appear to violate the spirit of WP:SELFPUB. But what about what about the Reuters interview of Bitterman's use of pink salt in cooking? That indicates noteworthiness, right?VR _talk 16:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The Salt Plate Cookbook is a reliable source. It is published by weldonowen, which at the time of publication was a division of the Bonnier Group.[16] Williams-Sonoma is the author, not the publisher, hence it is not self-published. COI is a guideline that applies to editors, not sources. Often, authors have an opinion about the topics they write about, but we rely on the competence of the publisher to determine whether their writers will falsify facts on that basis. Note that the reputable bookstore Barnes and Noble has not seen that as a barrier to their selling the book.[17] TFD (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Bitterman's book is also a reliable source since it is published by Andrews McMeel Publishing. Incidentally, he also sells Himalayan salt products.[18] TFD (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

These sources are poor and promotional in nature, the Williams Sonoma one being far worse of the two.

What specifically is being proposed? --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

You are making statements without reference to policy, guidelines or evidence. Wikipedia editors are not better judges of who should write books than reputable publishers. As to your second point, it is appropriate to identify reliable sources about a topic before deciding content rather than decide first what the content should be and then look for sources. TFD (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOAP.[19] Sorry, but I thought it obvious in context and some editors don't like being repeatedly pointed to the same policy. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Ronz's question. I am not seeing what type on content that would be of encyclopedic value would be found in a cookbook. Agricolae (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what the header of this discussion thread says: "use of Himalayan salt as cookware," in this case salt blocks. It is certainly more important than that five years ago the FDA sent a letter (which was not reported in any media) to a mail order company that was making false claims about salt, iodine and other products that had not been approved by the FDA for those uses. I bet more people buy H. salt blocks than H. salt pills. TFD (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the FDA letter doesn't merit mention, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with cookware, and using its presence in the article to justify completely unrelated content is basically OTHERSTUFF. We already say Himalayan salt is used for cooking (as a cooking surface) and it is referenced, so either we are spending a lot of effort here pursuing a redundant reference, or you want to add something more specific than "use of Himalayan salt as cookware," so, same question. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation with some amusement, as the term salt cookware caught my attention somewhere on wp. I believe that including this in our article would violate WP:PROMO as the there do not appear to be independent sources. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that requires sources to be independent. However, in this case the publishers are independent of the topic. Wikipedia articles are only supposed to reflect information available in reliable sources, not to provide a higher truth based on our own assessments. I doubt there are many cookbooks written by people who do not own or work in restaurants or sell cooking supplies. Even Jamie Oliver has a cooking line. TFD (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Google Himalayan+"salt plate" and use the news filter and there is a plethora of articles about Himalayan salt plates.[20] See for example "Hot or cold, salt block cooking adds flair to dishes" which I chose at random. Granted, it's not the MIT Journal of Culinary Science or the London School of Home Economics. TFD (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that requires sources to be independent. WP:NOT, which is the concern here, as well as WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been asked multiple times only to fall back on generalities about reliable sources and polices, so I will ask it yet again - what is it you want to add to the article for which you think these cookbooks represent an appropriate supporting reference? (It doesn't matter what Jamie Oliver sells. Rachel Ray has a line of copper-lined no-stick cooking pots, as does just about everyone else these days, but that still doesn't mean that a detailed description of it belongs in an article on copper. ) Agricolae (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles that say people cook on salt blocks. There are no articles that say people make false medical claims. Per weight, articles should reflect what reliable sources say, not the ideologies of editors. I bought garlic recently and if I went to the article about it, I would want to know about its value in cooking rather than if it would scare away vampires. Most readers care more about what garlic is used for than debunking pseudo-science. TFD (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Lets rearrange the garlic article so that it represents the skeptic POV:

Garlic (Allium sativum) is a species in the onion genus, Allium. It has been regarded as a force for both good and evil. In Europe, many cultures have used garlic for protection or white magic, perhaps owing to its reputation in folk medicine. Central European folk beliefs considered garlic a powerful ward against demons, werewolves, and vampires. To ward off vampires, garlic could be worn, hung in windows, or rubbed on chimneys and keyholes.

Do you not see that although it presents sourced info in the article that the emphasis is distorted?

TFD (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no articles that say people make false medical claims. The Time piece is titled: "Does Pink Himalayan Salt Have Any Health Benefits?", describes various claims that are made and answers that for all of them evidence is either negative or absent altogether. The Atlantic article explains the apparent route through which the false health claims associated with Himalayan salt likely arose out of a reverse-engineering of the 'naturalness' indicative from the of the color, before likewise dismissing the claims. These are mainstream popular-media sources, rather than specialized niche-cooking ones, and of all of the aspects of Himalayan salt they could have addressed, the one thing they both talk about in detail is health claims. (The Atlantic article also has one person specifically addressing what they see as it's best quality as a food additive: "it's good at being pink.") Do you not see that if mainstream popular media sources think false health claims are worth mentioning, maybe we should too?

And still, after the question has been asked four times, I haven't a clue what it is you want to add to the article, unless for some inexplicable reason it is something about garlic, vampires and Jamie Oliver. Agricolae (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I should have written medical claims such as those mentioned by the FDA, which were "[B]lood Pressure regulation, Diabetes, Bacterial kill off, Asthmatic attack assistance.” “For assistance with Lyme Disease or other harmful bacteria …”[21] Note I did not start this discussion thread. The header is "Appropriate source for use of Himalayan salt as cookware?" It then lists two books published by reputable publishers. I suggest you ask VR what they want to add. TFD (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please make an edit request. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the FDA letter - I don't think it belongs in the article, but I don't see what that has to do with the two cookbooks or Jamie Oliver. Agricolae (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC) To amplify the first, between the Time and The Atlantic articles we get mention of its use as a food additive/condiment, as cookware, in lamps and spas. Neither refers to its use in dietary supplements, which from my perspective drops that usage below the bar of noteworthiness unless we have another source addressing Himalayan salt from a general perspective that includes dietary supplement use as one of the places you typically find it. And I don't consider the FDA letter to demonstrate this noteworthiness, any more than a documented police citation for public urination means this is a noteworthy social practice. There is hardly anything found in nature that some drug company won't put in a pill and make illegal health claims about, but that doesn't mean they are noteworthy products or noteworthy claims, nor is the fact that they got their wrist slapped noteworthy in an article not about the company. Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

VR, is there any specific edit you wish to make based on these two sources? TFD (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to make any specific claim, if that's what you're asking. I wanted to make edits that would give readers a better idea of what this salt can be used for, interesting uses of the salt etc. I wanted to discuss here first, so that I don't spend too much time writing stuff up only to have it opposed and/or removed.VR _talk 16:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Is this an industry hit piece on....salt? I think were at Peak Wikipedia when even an article on something as boring as salt comes off as scornful and preachy.

It has been mentioned 4 times (in 4 of 6 paragraphs) that it has no proven health benefits and the word pseudoscience is used twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.59.96.194 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

98% Sodium Chloride?

There is a very weak link in this article based on an estimation that Himalayan rock salt contains 2% 98% Sodium Chloride, which aligns more with purified commercial table salt. Some other web sites say 86% Sodium Chloride, yet I haven't been able to find any reliable sources for either figure. Maybe some other editors will be able to find some more accurate and reliable sources?

Probrooks (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

could you specify a little more accurately where this 2% estimation is? If your salt is only 2%Sodium chloride then your salt supplier is defrauding you!!! Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 98% Sodium Chloride as in the header. The statement and reference is in the 2nd paragraph of the section, "Mineral Composition"

Probrooks (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have seen some retailer websites say that Himalayan salt or at least some types contain 86% sodium chloride, but every reliable site says 98%. I imagine a salt slab could be 86% sodium chloride if it had a lot of impurities, such as a higher level of iron. TFD (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I found this scientific analysis from Pakistan which does show Himalayan salt contains around 98% Sodium Chloride, and will update the page accordingly.

Probrooks (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV citation and quote

The following thoroughly non-NPOV citation and quote has been relocated here. An appropriately scientifically neutral one needs to be added in its place:

The neutrality of both author and his quote thoroughly fail Wikipedia's threshold. Schwarcz has disqualified himself as a neutral scientific commentator by resorting to invective and ad hominum attack, accusing those he criticizes of having inadequately developed or damaged brains. That simply does not fly here. A responsibly neutral and appropriately scientific quote needs to take its place. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The quote:

References

Could you explain what threshold you are referring to, because I can see no policy based reason to remove it. thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of this reference seems not inconsistent with WP:PARITY, which indicates that when refuting fringe, one can use equivalent citations "in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." Agricolae (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Lacking a response from wikiuser, I shall replace it . -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Without the "Dr" please, because of MOS:CREDENTIAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand why, Hob? 3 Honorary degrees, and Dr. is used on the book cover? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Because of what the wikilink MOS:CREDENTIAL says? "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not)"

Joe Schwarcz is not like Dr. Seuss or Dr. Dre. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should mention this: I often encounter articles peppered with "Professor", "Dr." and "PhD" around the names of fringe proponents, clearly with the goal of making them seem more credible. Phillip E. Johnson, for example, was a professor, but in law, which has nothing to do with his pseudoscientific ideas, so "Professor Phillip Johnson is in favor of Intelligent Design" is not a sentence you want to read in Wikipedia. I always delete those honorifics because of MOS:CREDENTIAL. And it would be hypocritical not to also delete them in the case of non-fringe academics or even anti-fringe academics like Schwarcz (who writes very interesting stuff, BTW. I read about three books by him). --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I take issue with the statement that the salt is marketed with claims that it has health benefits. While some companies do this, no such claims are made by reputable stores that sell it, such as Whole Foods. And chefs who use it claim it provides a different taste, but then there are many types of salts used in cooking, although I don't know if there is any discernible difference in the outcome. TFD (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The behavior of one 'reputable store' does not negate what everyone else is doing. I can find a dozen offerings on Amazon that promote it as 'healthy' (or similar). That being said, the primary driver of the health claims seems to be the 'natural foods' hype community rather than teh marketers themselves. Would you prefer '. . . promoted with claims . . .'? That is certainly true. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently it is also sold at Walmart (I have never been to one of there stores) and has become a staple in the specialty salts section of many stores. They even sell it in my local discount store. According to an article in Business Insider, "The artisan salt market is booming though. Global salt consumption is forecast to be worth $14.1 billion by 2020. For the consumer, pink Himalayan salt is marketed as tasting more luxurious and flavorful." You can buy garlic pills on Amazon that promise health benefits, although there is no scientific basis. That doesn't mean that people are buying garlic for medical reasons. Do you have any evidence that the alternative health industry is the main driver of pink salt sales? I notice that the article for Himalayan black salt is less strident. TFD (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is sold all over the place, which is completely irrelevant, as is why people buy garlic since we never claim people buy Himalayan salt for any particular reason. You didn't answer my question, though - would you prefer "promoted"? Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the phrasing has been marketed or has been promoted. That way it is not claiming that is the only or major reason people buy it. I first bought it for aesthetic reasons. It was $1.40 for a grinder with 13.4 oz of salt. I didn't know I'd get in trouble with the anti-pseudoscience police. TFD (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence says absolutely nothing about what drives sales, why people are buying it - that is an entirely different question. Your personal experience and sense of persecution are not really things we can cite. Saying 'has been marketed or has been promoted' is unnecessarily awkward: marketing is a form of promotion, not an alternative to it, so 'has been promoted' includes both marketing and non-marketing promotion. Agricolae (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

TFD. Please go and stand on the naughty step for 31 hours and think about what you did. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)