Talk:Psyllium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Author

When I wikified the article i didn't know where/if I should include the author's information, so I removed it. Here it is in case anyone wants to put it back in the article somewhere:

1-C.V. Hanson , 2-E.A. Oelke and D.H. Putnam, 3-E.S. Oplinger


1 Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.

2 Department of Agronomy, and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.

3 Department of Agronomy, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and Cooperative Extension Service, University of Wisconsin- Madison, WI 53706. June 1, 1992.

[edit] Cite

This needs a cite (read WP:RS and WP:V first! •Jim62sch• 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally as part of a cleanser, together with a wide spectrum anti-parasitic formula, and a probiotic, ie friendly bacteria for the intestinal system.

Psyllium is twice as effective as regular fiber to cleanse the system and to those who can tolerate it, preferred.


This is rather badly phrased; "Cases of allergic reaction to psyllium containing cereal have been documented." is there any psyllium that contains cereal?

[edit] Merge Psyllium seed husks here

[edit] Support

I support the merge. --Slashme 05:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, please point to Isabgol (also Sat-Isabgol or Isapgol),

As long as it re-directs properly then I support. --jadepearl 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please merge with Isabgol it is maximum used in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.136.250 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They may be topic with different uses for research, but they are closely related. As long as it redirects properly as Jadepearl says, there shouldn't be any difficulties for users. Nmoo (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There CAN be common ground. There can be a mention of it with reference to a full page for Phyllium Husks. Yes, Psyllium is the plant, but the product of the husks is a product of Psyllium. It's like listing hemp, but not mentioning what you can do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.27.9.20 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the value of merging both articles, in that Psyllium husks is just a stub, and is, or should, be part of the flora article; and probably generates more interest in the main Psyllium article than the plant information. I believe both articles merged - under Psyllium (with a redirect for husks) - would be best for information seekers. The emphasis will be on the plant, with applications secondary.This is common amongst most flora with human bio applications.

This is not a product, but a biological, and the new article will be structured accordingly, with no commercial references in the main article. SystemArchitect (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Do not merge. One is about a plant and one is about a product. Both article function well as standalone artilces. -- Alan Liefting talk 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is a good point. I retract my support for the merge. --Slashme 14:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Psyllium is a general topic. Psyllium husk is a more specific topic with a lot of information attached to it. I stand in favour of not merging. EM (Frequent wikipedia user) Dec 22 2007

[edit] 'Cultural' or 'Cultivating'?

Which word is correct for crop planting etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)