Talk:Phyllanthus emblica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality and accuracy of medicinal section

This has a large chunk written entirely from a POV that Ayurvedic medicine is true. Needs work on WP:NPOV. Gordonofcartoon 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This website: http://www.itmonline.org/arts/amla.htm disputes whether Vitamin C is a major constituent of Indian gooseberry. It cites the following academic paper:

Ghosal S, Triethi VK, and Chauhan S, Active xconstituents of Emblica officinalis: Part 1.-The chemistry and antioxidative effects of two new hydrolysable tannins, Emblicanin A and B, Indian Journal of Chemistry 1996; 35B: 941-948 68.160.125.236 04:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Odor

Would someone who is familiar with both amla and durian please confirm that they have similar odors? It may be worth mentioning in the article if true, because the odor of durian is rather uniquely pungent.

The reason I ask is, I have some digestive enzyme supplements that contain Amla, and I swear they smell very much like durian. There's no mistaking it. However, I'm not sure if it's the Amla contributing to the smell, or some other ingredient. =Axlq 04:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Paul144 persists on undoing valid improvements that cite published scientific materials. The material at dispute is actually published as part of a texbook, "Ayurveda: The Divine Science of Life (2006), by Mosby/Elsevier. Content cited is the same material in html. I respectfully request that Paul144 does a little reading and a little less "undoing". Phytogreen

The Caldecott site does not provide up to date citations and is not a scientific reference. The Ayurveda book is not a scientifically-reviewed factual source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts or scientifically supportable assumptions. Ayurveda is folk medicine. There can be a section referring to Ayurvedic practice but most of the references to Caldecott should be removed. --Paul144 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a nonsensical statement. Monographs by their very nature are secondary sources, never a primary source of research. Data is gathered and culled from various sources and compiled to provide an overview. Wikipedia's criteria for referencing does not state that all information must come from primary sources:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Paull144 is in flagrant violation of Wikipedia's own rules, and for some unknown reason continues to removes references to material on the Amalaki article. I request that Paul144 contributions to the article be stopped, because his/her arguments are irrational and seem to have an agenda.Phytogreen (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)phytogreen

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 . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Title section

This article is a great example of the problem with Wikipedia. Self-styled experts who come in and delete changes based on nothing except their fancy. Who put "Native Americans" next to the title? This plant is indigenous to India!! Its not been used by Native Americans!!Phytogreen (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Phytogreen

Citation so Ancient chinese med. use could be added?

Special:Contributions/91.20.222.71User_talk:91.20.222.71(page does not exist)(I added the Chinese name. It is used in Traditional Chinese Medicine and mentioned in documents as old as the Tang-Dynasty (618-906))

Above pasted from changes history Trev M  ~  14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing project importance to Mid

This plant appears to have a long and significant history of cultivation in many cultures, and there is contemporary interest in it as a medicinal plant so I'm putting up to Mid importance. Trev M  ~  05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Section Traditional uses of amlaki should be revised

The title introduces a new foreign word: amlaki. This word is not used anywhere else on the page. It could be added to the synonyms on top of the page, and the header could be changed to just 'Traditional uses'. It IS about the Indian gooseberry, is it not? Also, is the use of Indian translation absolutely neccessary? The medicinal section contains many Indian words. To me, this adds nothing and makes the section pretty unreadable. LadyXochi (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-English vernacular names

Moved from the article as unnecessary for the English encyclopedia and not recommended per WP:NOTCATALOG. --Zefr (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Names for this plant in various languages include:
lozü in Ao languages
halïlaj or ihlïlaj (اهليلج هليلج) in Arabic
amlakhi in Assamese
balakka in Batak language, an Indonesian language
amloki (আমলকী) in Bengali
amlai (आमलाइ) in Bodo language
anmole (庵摩勒) in Chinese
ambare (अमबरे) in Garo language
āmla (આમળાં) in Gujarati
ānvalā (आँवला) in Hindi
kantout Prei (កន្ទួតព្រៃ) in Khmer
bettada nellikaayi ಬೆಟ್ಟದ ನೆಲ್ಲಿಕಾಯಿ (ನೆಲ್ಲಿ / ನೆಲ್ಲಿಕಾಯಿ) in Kannada
sohmylleng in Khasi
āvāḷo (आवाळो) in Konkani
mak kham bom in Lao
melaka (ملاك) in Malay, A state in Malaysia, Malacca was named after this tree.
nelli (നെല്ലി) in Malayalam
heikru in Meitei
āvaḷā (आवळा) (or awla) in Marathi
sunhlu in Mizo
zee phyu thee (ဆီးၿဖဴသီး) in Myanmar
amalā (अमला) in Nepali
anlaa (ଅଁଳା) in Oriya
suaklu in Paite
aula (ਔਲਾ) in Punjabi
amalika (अमलिक) in Sanskrit
dhatric (धात्रिक) in Sanskrit, Maithili
nelli (නෙල්ලි) in Sinhala
nelli (நெல்லி - Root Word) or Nellikkāy (நெல்லிக்காய்) or Nellikani (நெல்லிக்கனி) in Tamil
aavnlaa (amla or ambla or awla) in Urdu
usiri kaay (ఉసిరి కాయ) in Telugu
ma kham pom (มะขามป้อม) in Thai
skyu ru ra (སྐྱུ་རུ་ར་) in Tibetan
amla (آملہ) in Urdu
me rừng, me mận, chùm ruột núi, or là mắc kham in Vietnamese

Size of tree

The page says "The tree is small to medium in size, reaching 1–8 m (3 ft 3 in–26 ft 3 in) in height" and there is an annotation to the effect that a citation is needed. I'd say the requirement is stronger than that since https://florafaunaweb.nparks.gov.sg/Special-Pages/plant-detail.aspx?id=3699 says "It is a large tree with thick arching branches, 18-32 m tall". Now that's a government site describing a native tree so is probably reasonably trustworthy, so there seems to be some dispute about how big the tree grows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.62.77 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Morphology

The branchlets are not glabrous or finely pubescent

They are not A (n)or B, so what are they? Jidanni (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)