Talk:Indian gooseberry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Indian gooseberry is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] Seed
The hard seed should be mentioned. Badagnani 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
