Talk:Fenugreek/Archive 1

Comment moved to talk page
"Fenugreek" is an inherently funny word. The word comes from the Latin for "Greek hay," suggesting the Romans found it funny too.

=contribs) 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I added a redirect page from serum cholesterol to cholesterol, since it covers the clinical aspects as well as the normal chemistry. Poochner 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The ancient site where this plant was first identified is Tell Halaf, not Tell Halal. To my knowledge there is no place, ancient or modern, called Tell Halal. The reference to the publication (note 2) by Zohary and Hopf appears to be correct. Unfortunately, this error in spelling was copied as such by other links. [user:prentissdej], 9:55 am EST, 28 May 2012.Prentissdej (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the correction

spelling?
According to my (Persian) mother the Persian name of fenugreek is spelled with an "n" not an "m" in Persian. Someone might want to fix that. 81.216.206.250 (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * be our guest, and thank your mom for us

Lead sentence
Should not the lead sentence of an article tell what the subject of the article is? This lead sentence enumerates common names, and the taxonomic family in which it is placed, but never says whether we are talking about a plant or animal or mineral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Marlin (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

= Rosh HaShanah custom === Can anyone verify the custom of eating fenugreek on Rosh Hashanah? The Babylonian Talmud (Kritut 5b and Horayot 12a) says that seeing (or eating) Rubia on the New Year is a sign of good luck. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 11th century) in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 109a, identifies Rubia as fenugreek. I do not have any idea what Rashi's source is. A purely speculative guess would be that he read Rubia as a Latin word (it means madder, the red dye, in Latin). Hilbe (fenugreek seeds), the ubiquitous spice of the Yeminite community, is a rust brown color. Could this have led Rashi to identify Rubia as fenugreek? I stress that this is an unscientific guess, because both madder and fenugreek should have been known in Rashi's 11th century France; and unlikely to be confused.

In any case, the custom is still followed by orthodox Sefaradi and Israeli Jews to this day. However, Rubia is understood to be black-eyed peas (see that article in the Wikipedia). This makes sense, as black-eyed peas are called Lubiya in Arabic. The Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud is very closely related to Arabic. For instance, another good luck sign mentioned in the same two sources is the Qara (bottle gourd), which is also the name of the bottle gourd in Arabic. I have started asking Sefaradim about this. I have not yet found anyone who uses fenugreek for Rubia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.62.109.164 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your guess is just that. Rubya is another name for tiltan, and the Rambam (Perush Hamishnayot Kilayim 2:5, and Terumot 10:5) explicitly translates tiltan as alhilbe. If Sefardim use lubya as a siman as well, that's all very well, just as Ashkenazim use meren; but if anyone claims that black-eyed peas are rubya he does so out of ignorance. -- Zsero (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some more research over Rosh Hashana. I had misunderstood your original point about Rashi; I thought you were disputing the translation of תלתן as fenugreek, so I cited Maimonides for that.  But you weren't disputing that at all; rather, you were disputing the translation of  רוביא as תלתן.  You are right that it is Rashi who makes that translation; the Tur explicitly cites him as the source for this identification, and thus he is the source for the Shulchan Aruch and all subsequent authorities who make this identification.  Avudraham identifies רוביא as פול המצרי, "Egyptian peas", which I assume is the same as black-eyed peas.  I have modified the footnote accordingly.
 * By the way, thanks for making me do that research; I also discovered along the way that the source which Be'er Hagolah cites as "Mordechai, beginning of chapter 1 of Rosh Hashana", is actually Ran at the end of Rosh Hashana. I then found the Bet Yosef made the same mistake.  That section at the end of the Ran must have been mistakenly printed in some early edition as the beginning of the Mordechai, and it must have been repeated in several subsequent editions, because it's unlikely that the Bet Yosef writing in Israel in the mid-16th century, and the Be'er Hagolah writing in Amsterdam 100 years later, would both be using the same edition. -- Zsero (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article not an advertisement
I have removed the unsupported statement "the famous name of Fenugreek is Kasuri Methi..." and associated links to a commercial website. These were added by an unidentified user with no explanatory comment, and seem to be an attempt to turn the article into an advertisement for a particular supplier. HairyDan (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You were wrong to do so! I'm just another Westerner but I do know that "Kasuri Methi" is a famous food item, in fact a daily staple, in many cusines including Indian, Persian, and others.  I do not know why there is one specific brand that is so popular but the closest I can liken it to for Westerners is "Heinz Ketchup".  Kasuri Methi is used as a condiment as well as an ingredient so it is a very good analogy.  No one would ever argue that "Heinz Ketchup" is not a famous food item in the West or try to scrub it out of an article about ketchup.  Kasuri Methi is just such a famous item.  One can find it on the shelves of stores worldwide.  There are many shops that carry it even in my small Amercian city.  Kasuri Methi is already on the tables of billions of the world's population today.  They hardly need a link in wikipedia.  Too funny!
 * I'm not the guy who added it to the article earlier or a company shill. I'm sure the company could give two toots about wikipedia.
 * I'd like to see a mention of Kasuri Methi and a link to a wikipedia page on it. As a Westener I would love to know the story of how it became so popular with such a huge fraction of the world's population.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.77.92 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the Tomato Ketchup article, Heinz is mentioned as a notable manufacturer, understandably, but the article does not link to any Heinz sites. There is no logical argument to support the inclusion of links. If I was a 'westerner' I would be able to quench my burning desire for Kasuri Methi links with a Google search. There is no value or precedent in including a link, and it indicates a preference for a particular brand, therefore on balance it is wrong. Incidentally I had never heard of this brand, so it would have constituted advertising from my point of view. 91.104.145.190 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to argue with the above editors, but for the record Kasuri (or Kasoori) Methi is simply dried fenugreek leaves, used as a spice, as searching for a recipe will clearly show. It is not a brand name. One minute with google solved this issue. Yes, links to products are inappropriate. Angryredplanet (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced Material
Article has been tagged for needing sourcing since September 2010. I have revised the Cuisine section to remove unsourced material and am inserting a copy of the original version here. Please feel free to source and reincorporate the below material into the article! Doniago (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy
I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, and haven't quite mastered making changes, but I noticed that the taxonomic classification of this plant isn't right. It does not include Phylum, Class, or Order in it, and seems to have an extra classification. I know from grade 11 biology that the taxonomy classifications are: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKerrivan (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe yes or maybe not?
Lactation: Fenugreek seeds are thought to be a galactagogue that is often used to increase milk supply in lactating women.[11]

Seeds: fenugreek seed is widely used as a galactagogue (milk producing agent) by nursing mothers to increase inadequate breast milk supply. Studies have shown that fenugreek is a potent stimulator of breast milk production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.166.138 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

unsourced language section
This section is completely unsourced, unnecessary and brings nothing to the article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an interlanguage dictionary, and per WP:COATRACK, it is not an indiscriminate collection of tidbits. If the advocate thinks there should be something on the diffusion of fenugreek, then write prose, sourced, about the diffusion of fenugreek. A blotch of languages tells nothing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you continue to revert without any connection to any relevant Wikipedia policy, it's time to go to 3O.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: declined - I had to remove this post because of lack of thorough discussion between both the parties. Unless both sides present their views adequately, 3O cannot be given. For more information, refer to the main instruction page. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The section blanked shows the different words for fenugreek used around the world. It has been contributed to by many editors for a long time without issue. Sourcing is not necessary for simple definitions that are not challenged. A Georgian (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your 3O request has been again removed. A single response by an editor cannot be seen as a thorough discussion. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) PS: Having said that, I do think that A Georgian's replacement of this unsourced material was improper. The BURDEN section of the Verifiability policy says: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." That makes it very clear (a) that any unsourced material may be removed, (b) that it is improper to replace unsourced material after it has been removed as being unsourced, and (c) that the fact that it's been here for a long time is a reason for it to be removed not given yet another chance to be sourced, especially since it's been –tagged for months. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A source, reference, or citation is not required for every word in a list the verifiability of which has not been challenged. If someone disputes that, for instance, "halba" is not the correct Malay word for fenugreek, then it should be removed if a reliable source cannot be found. That was not the case when Ugog Nizdast first blanked the section; his reasoning then was to the section itself.  Only when his blanking was reverted did he raise the question of verifiability.  A Georgian (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The addition of the tag, months ago, was the challenge. Even if that had not been done, Kintetsubuffalo's deletion of the material for lack of sourcing would be the challenge. I'm sorry, but you're just simply wrong: As stated by BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." It doesn't get much clearer than "any material." What you're probably confused about is the standard, also in BURDEN, "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." But that's the standard for adding material. Once someone removes it for lack of sourcing, that removal is the challenge. The best practice is to state that you're removing it because it is unsourced and that you have a concern that it's unverifiable, but simply removing it is not a violation of policy. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So there is a question re: verfiability? Is every definition in the section being challenged?  Are any?  If so, which one or ones? A Georgian (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A tag at the end of a section or paragraph ordinarily challenges everything unsourced in the paragraph, but that question is moot since Kintetsubuffalo removed all of it in this edit. That challenges it all. Remember, however, that sourcing is now only the threshold requirement. Kintetsubuffalo had other objections as well. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with him about those objections, but only that they ought to be discussed if the material is to be restored in a sourced form. But sourcing it is the first step. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This section was not created all at once. It is the product of many contributors over time.  None of the elements of the section were challenged when it was added.  The whole block was blanked, and it was blanked for reasons other than sourcing.  It is disengenuous to shift the reason to sourcing when the section blanking was reverted.  There is no content that has been challenged re: verifiability, so it, as it was added met WP; there was no indication that it would or should be challenged.  It seems to me that Kintetsubuffalo or Ugog Nizdast should come up with at least one example of error in the section before requiring that each and every element in it be sourced. A Georgian (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're simply repeating arguments which have already been answered, above. I'm only here to tell you what the policy is (and Ugog was only here to decline the 3O); what you and Kintetsubuffalo do with that information is up to you. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The section is redundant as it largely duplicates what's already accessible to the reader via the interlanguage links on the sidebar. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be redundant if it were present elsewhere in the article A Georgian (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It need not be present anywhere in the article as it is already present elsewhere on the page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see the information in a side-bar A Georgian (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's at the very bottom of the side bar; you'll need to be on the article page to see it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As TM noted above, reinserting information that has been challenged due to verifiability concerns (other concerns notwithstanding) without providing any sourcing is a clear violation of WP:BURDEN. I am consequently re-removing the information and will consider its reinsertion without any referencing by any editors involved in this discussion to be in bad faith unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you remove my response to Iaritmioawp? Here it is again; please do not revert again until the discussion is complete. A Georgian (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove anything and it is inappropriate of you to ignore WP:BURDEN without an explanation. Please stop reinserting challenged material without providing any references. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have ignored nothing, I have explained myself. If you do not accept my explanation that is one thing, but it is there.  If we do not agree, then let's seek resolution. A Georgian (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a request for page protection. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you TM. A Georgian, reviewing this thread I see you explaining why you believe the information should not require sourcing, but that's not pertinent to WP:BURDEN. Once information has been challenged per BURDEN it no longer matters what editors believe (barring a consensus, which at least seems unlikely in this particular case); sources are required for inclusion.
 * As has been noted, there are concerns beyond the lack of sourcing, but you would have a much stronger case for inclusion if you could at least provide those sources instead of violating what is IMO a pretty clear policy simply because, apparently, you don't feel it applies to the information in question. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are requiring a source for every term in the section? No one has yet disputed the verifiability of a single term. A Georgian (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already answered that question and objection. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a "yes"? A Georgian (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I've found that the more an editor seems to resist providing sourcing, the more I tend to insist upon it. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

a herb/an herb
The word herb uses an H sound in most English speaking countries, therefore "an herb" is grammatically incorrect. I have changed it to "a herb" - if anyone has a valid reason for reverting this, please feel free to post about it here.Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you are aware, the word is pronounced differently in American English and in British English. Wikipedia has a policy regarding situations such as these - basically you should not switch articles from one to the other.  See WP:ENGVAR for details.  Deli nk (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, exactly. Thanks Dei nk.  There are many irresolvable things like this and to prevent endless stupid edit wars, policy is that you stick with the established style. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The usage of the source is what is not to be changed. A Georgian (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * no - read WP:ENGVAR - "a herb" vs "an herb" is 100% a dialect difference. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OR>source? A Georgian (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/herb?s=t
 * Which dialect did the source use? A Georgian (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, according to wikipedia rules, just don't change it, even if other users change it? Or if is has been changed it should always be reverted to the original state? ie. first edit was "an" so always revert to "an" ? Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears from the discussion that the use of "an" or "a" with "herb" is a matter of dialect; if the source dialect uses "an" AND it is disputed, then the source prevails. This comes up now and then with the difference between British and American spelling, e.g., labor and labour; if the source is British, then it's labour; if the source is American, then it's labor.  One doesn't change a British source to comply with American usage, or vice versa. A Georgian (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lucky that it isn't important. I can deal with UK or US English. Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the point is trvial, and not worth anyone's time to fight over. But for the record, and as it appears everyone here knows, the "h" is pronounced in the UK and is silent in the USA. I do not know about other English-speaking countries. When the comment was first added, which was back in 2006, it was added as "a herb", not as "an herb". that is to say, it was added in the UK format, and should have remained in that format in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I propose reverting to the original, but will wait for a day or two to assess any input generated. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do opt to change it, it might be worth adding a comment that the choice is intentional. Personally I favor "an", but I'm also in the USA and acknowledge that bias may be an issue.
 * Also, FWIW, Usernameistoosimilar is currently indefinitely blocked. DonIago (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A question about sources
I want to make an edit to the wiki page, but first wanted to ask a question.

I am allergic to fenugreek, and also allergic to peanuts (both allergies conclusively ascertained through blood tests). These two plants are quite closely related (see family information etc.). I have been told that this is the reason why I am allergic to both. Since many people with peanut allergies have severe reactions if they come into contact with peanuts, I thought it may be of interest to them to mention on the wiki page that if you are allergic to peanuts you may also be allergic to fenugreek. My problem is that I have no source to link to, just my personal experience and the fact that the two plants are indeed demonstrably related to each other.

So my question is, do I have to cite a source for this information or can I update the page regardless (seeing as the information can be of interest to many with severe allergies)?

192.71.251.1 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Concerned allergic
 * Good question. Information published on Wikipedia is required to be verifiable, so if no sources have discussed the fenugreek-peanuts relationship then I don't think the information would be appropriate for inclusion. That said, I did a quick Google search and there appear to be a fair number of hits for both peanuts and fenugreek, so perhaps a good source can be located? DonIago (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Traditional Medicine
User:Jytdog, is there a specific limitation (restriction) in Wikipedia policies that whenever one wishes to cite different modes and usages of traditional medicine, that one must cite a reliable medicinal source? After all, traditional medicine is not always proven by science, but is still often supported by reliable sources that note its long traditional use as a remedy for certain ailments, whether proven effective or not.Davidbena (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * claims about health, are claims about health. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * this source is a book review from 1999 discussing a book of conference proceedings. That is not even in the same universe as a MEDRS source. Knock it off. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, shalom. A question, please. If a certain traditional claim is premised by "Although not proven as medically effective," should we still be hindered from making note of a traditional use of a certain plant? Perhaps we can get some feed-back on this issue from a respected and experienced editor, User:Avraham? I will, meanwhile, not interject on the issue, unless we can agree to add its traditional medicinal use in its designated section outlining "Traditional use." By the way, my father-in-law has consistently used fenugreek relish as an antidote to his diabetes, and this by doctors' recommendations.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposed prefaced text is entirely WP:OR and not supported by the source you provided, which was unacceptable in any case per MEDRS. Also, do not abuse this talk page as a forum to discuss personal experiences.  Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A herb/an herb
User:Porphyro -- the community put WP:ENGVAR in place exactly because there is no rational way to resolve a style dispute like this. The notion is that if English style X is established in article, don't change it without prior consensus. Without that piece of the MOS in place, articles would be beset by endless edit wars over style issues that would then generate endless RfCs or other forms of DR that would become a time sink across the encyclopedia. Please get consensus to change i; this is not something you can do unilaterally, much less across several articles. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Jytdog, I am aware of WP:ENGVAR, and would like to point out to you the policy says that one should "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety". In the case of this article, that is "a herb", which was introduced in the original article. Additionally, in the above discussion, it appears to me that what consensus there was, was formed on the side of "a herb". Porphyro (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it is what it is and it already was "an herb" when the previous editor (now indeffed) starting messing with it. just leave it alone already. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, per policy it should be "a herb" on this page, and your advice to "leave it alone" could just as easily be applied to yourself. I will leave the current wording for a few weeks to see if anyone else decides to weigh in, and intend to then change the page to align with policy. Porphyro (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to get local consensus on this kind of thing, which is why ENGVAR exists. Leave it alone, or waste the community's time with an RFC but stop wasting your time and mine making useless arguments here.  I don't care if it says "an " or "a" - what is not acceptable is messing with it.   Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point of opening an RFC. We have an administrator's comment on this page clarifying that policy is for "a" and even indicating his intention to change it, which may have happened and been reverted. Such a change is exactly per the ENGVAR policy, we should change it and stick to it. This is not "messing with it". I suggest you allow such an edit to stick instead of reverting and we can draw a line under this matter. You've referred me to the policy twice in this thread; how about we follow it? Why is pointing out that it clearly delineates which version we should use here a "useless argument"? Porphyro (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you keep trying to change it, you will end up violating 3RR. The only way you will be able to change it is through an RfC. In light of the fact that you went from article to article systemically changing "an herb" to "a herb" (diff, diff,  diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) please see Style Warriors' Hymn.  More seriously, as noted in that piece, style warriors are considered time sinks by the community, and if you keep doing this you are heading for a topic ban or indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3RR applies within a 24 hour period and I don't think is relevant. I admit that when I made those edits, I didn't realise it was actually a ENGVAR issue but rather just a mistake, hence my zeal in making the changes. You'll note that I have not reverted the Lemon Balm revert you made; I checked the history for the article and the initial stylisation was for "an herb" and so per policy that's what it should be. On this article, policy dictates it should be "a herb". I will note, though, that I have reverted your edit once, and you have reverted mine twice. This would put you closer to violating "3RR" than it would me, and my suggested edit is totally in line with established policy and administrator suggestion, as covered above. I think it is wrong to suggest that the onus is on me to get an RFC: you are the one pushing a point of view specifically against wikipedia policy. To emphasise: the ENGVAR policy exists to unamIbiguously resolve these debates and for this article, it should be "a herb". I see no real arguments for the contrary, and for what it's worth, my having made policy-incorrect edits (in good faith), doesn't diminish the fact that policy is clear on this one. Porphyro (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have warned you to walk away from being a style warrior and wasting everyone's time. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are being the style warrior here on the side of "an herb", insisting on your viewpoint against policy. Porphyro (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No one further has weighed in on this and so I am making the change in accordance with policy, as I have done on each of the herb-related pages that you noticed I had edited, reverting a few of them to the "an herb" style. Each of these articles is now in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. Please do not edit it without an RFC or DR. We are now within the spirit and letter of policy on each of these pages and I hope we can draw a line under this ridiculous matter. Porphyro (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you have just gone through four or five articles and made the same edit in each one, changing it to your preferred ENGVAR version. That is what happened.  You have no claim to objectivity based on your behavior. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is factually incorrect. I suggest you recheck my edit history. Porphyro (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right it was 7. The diffs are above. You made them all in the course of a single hour and 5 of them in the space of two minutes. .Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It feels as though you're wilfully ignoring what I'm saying. When I made those edits I didn't realise it was an ENGVAR issue. You will note that I have reverted each of those edits that were against policy, which I did earlier today before also bringing this article into line with the policy.Porphyro (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wikilawyering here to try to force your preferred style. I hear you loud and clear.  Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that you will not back down on this. I have requested a dispute resolution Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.Porphyro (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would have gone to 3O first, but I guess we've crossed that bridge now. It seems a little disingenuous to claim that nobody's chimed in when the issue appeared to die almost a month ago and has only been active again for under 24 hours, but whatever.

There is an earlier conversation on this Talk page which seems to indicate that "a" was the original form of the article...I believe at that point it would win the ENGVAR argument, FWIW. Personally I don't have much of a horse in this race. DonIago (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Donlago. I left the discussion for a month to see if any other users would see the page and put something in. This didn't happen, so I posted again today. You say my comment is disingenuous but it seems fair to me- should I have done something else? Perhaps you're right in that I should have pinged users who were in the discussion above, but it seemed to me as though people's positions were clearly stated. Porphyro (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I might have chimed in if it appeared that the conversation was actively seeking feedback from others, versus having gone inactive (maybe I missed such a request?). It's not really a big deal at this point, but I would have either gone to 3O or the projects associated with the article before I went to DRN. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, if it sounds like I am, just trying to offer approaches that might yield speedier resolution. DRN is a pretty formal (read: time-consuming) process, a lot of the time. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay- I did say " I will leave the current wording for a few weeks to see if anyone else decides to weigh in, and intend to then change the page to align with policy" higher up the conversation but I agree that I could have made this more obvious. I can see that it wasn't really apparent that I was hoping for more people to chime in- it wasn't explicitly seeking feedback and it got buried in a wall of text. I didn't know about 3O- I agree retrospectively that that would have been a better choice. Thank you for your comments. Porphyro (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing; happy to help! I don't know whether I'd be considered an "involved" editor at this point, but I have some (not much) experience working at 3O and DRN if you both would consider it reasonable to close the DRN filing and try to work this out between ourselves (as there's now more than two of us). I'm not trying to short-circuit anything, just try to get us all to a reasonable consensus in the most expeditious manner. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind treating this as a 3O request if that makes things more expedient. Porphyro (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As Jytdog indicated that they were okay with the DRN filing being closed at the filing itself, and Porphyro indicated that they were okay with this being handled as a 3O request (well, we're kind of skirting the 3O process, but I'm here and happy to offer a third opinion, anyhow...), I've suggested that the DRN filing be closed. I'd close it myself except that I might be considered "involved" at this point.

I think this comment by (still visible farther up on this page) may be most pertinent, as the dispute seems to focus on how WP:ENGVAR should be applied to this article. While personally, speaking as an American (and a (gasp!) Vermonter at that), I favor "an herb", it appears that the article was originally written up using "a herb". Based on my reading of MOS:RETAIN, then, I'm inclined to believe that "a herb" is appropriate for the article, barring other considerations. I hope we can all agree that we're all acting in good faith here and trying to do what we believe is best for the article.

Jytdog, my inclination is to assume that you didn't realize that "a herb" was the original version (I didn't realize that myself at one point), and were acting in good faith by changing the text to "an herb" because you thought that was the original version. Given everything I've said here, do you still object to this change...and if so, could you restate your rationale?

Thanks to both of you! DonIago (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I find objectionable in all of this is the blatant style warrioring. Advise Porphyro to leave behind "a/an" and other style warrioring bullshit that wastes everybody time, and I will be satisfied with the legalistic decision to go with the letter of ENGVAR as you suggest.  We have an encyclopedia to build and maintain. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that would be a conduct issue, not a matter of the content here specifically. If you felt that Porphyro was edit-warring, then the best course would have been to follow the recommendations at WP:EW. Responding to edit-warring by repeatedly reverting, except in rare cases of blatant vandalism and a handful of other exceptions, makes you just as guilty of edit-warring as the other party. I suppose if I'd been more activist on this matter at the right time, I would have given both of you an edit-warring notice, essentially forcing the discussion here (hopefully).
 * Similarly, Porphyro, while WP:BRD is merely an essay, in my experience it is also generally considered "best practice" to initiate a discussion any time one of your good-faith edits is reverted, rather than simply reinserting your change. We've already talked about 3O as an option for getting a quick third opinion if a Talk page dispute starts dragging on, so I won't reiterate that (beyond the fact that I just did...).
 * As we're all talking here now, I don't think it would behoove anyone to pursue behavior relating to this article as a conduct matter...among other things, admins are typically looking for examples of recent disruptive conduct where a party isn't showing a willingness to engage in discussion, and I think it's a credit to both of you that you are talking to each other at this point.
 * Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing; I'm just trying to offer options for how these kinds of situations could be more constructively resolved in the future. Can we all agree that, a) "a herb" appears to be correct for this article based on how it was originally written, and b) we'll try to be a bit more mindful of potential edit-warring situations?
 * As an aside, I'm battling a pretty horrible head-cold right now, so if I haven't handled this with as much tact and diplomacy as I might have, I offer my deepest apologies! DonIago (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Porphyro, do you get it that style warrioring is a waste or time, or not? Let me know and we can resolve this thing, otherwise we can start to argue based on the details of ENGVAR, which believe me I can do for a very long time. Up to this point i have just been coming from the spirit of ENGVAR (namely, leave it alone, as it is a complete waste of time)  Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I still object to your claim that I am style warrioring; I have reverted my own changes where incorrect when I could probably have got away with leaving them. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that style warrioring is a waste of time. I'm happy to draw this to a close. I'm sorry for my actions at the start of this process- it didn't set us up for a very good conversation. I've learnt quite a lot during this process- thank you DonIago. Porphyro (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad I could help get this sorted out. Actually, I'm sorry I didn't pipe up earlier, as this page was on my watchlist, but...well, glad it's worked out now, unless there are any unresolved issues... DonIago (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

To (hopefully) avoid future disputes such as the above (and the one further up on this page)
Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template Thank you--DonIago (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ron h jones (Talk) 23:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Breastfeeding
My edit on breastfeeding that was challenged and subsequently "copyedited".
 * Regarding whether it is "commonly" used to augment milk supply: Yes, the source says "Table 3 summarizes the identified studies of common herbal galactagogues". It then says "Fenugreek was the herb most commonly used by women surveyed in Australia: 56% reported its use, 98.2% of whom used it to increase breast milk supply.22 Of lactation consultants surveyed, 15% in Switzerland and 99% in Canada reported that they had used fenugreek to increase lactation."
 * The source discusses evidence of both safety ("Adverse events were not reported in the studies identified; however, fenugreek may cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and decreased glucose levels in the mother and diarrhea in the child.") and efficacy. Evidence on efficacy is mixed, which is how I presented it. Zefr changed this to "no evidence of safety or efficacy" which is not at all what the source says. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The quality of journals is useful to consider for representing information on this topic. The majority of publications are from alt med journals with low impact factors and poor reputations. This study used in the article, although a review only of available, mostly weak literature, and including only two preliminary alt med studies, concluded that "evidence regarding the efficacy of fenugreek in increasing milk production is insufficient" and "fenugreek may cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and decreased glucose levels in the mother and diarrhea in the child". It seems reasonable to conclude there is insufficient credible literature to declare that fenugreek is effective and safe for breastfeeding. We could change "no evidence" to "insufficient evidence", if agreed here. --Zefr (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "No good evidence" covers it, I'd say. Alexbrn (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of our Pubmed reviews use the term "insufficient evidence" or "insufficiency of evidence". We should stick with that wording. "No good evidence" has a different meaning from "insufficient evidence". Neither source says that there is insufficient evidence on safety. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 03:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to paraphrase sources; they say more than just "insufficient" - that the evidence is of v. poor quality. It's fine now. Alexbrn (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your paraphrasing but will not be a stickler about this issue. Why did you remove "is commonly used"? That is a well-sourced fact as I described above. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's vague, untrue (it's not used "for" this, because it probably doesn't work) and because the The Ochsner Journal isn't a great source for anything non-trivial. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologize that I do not know how to format these "properly"... (I think I got it!)

Second source sounds kind of sketchy but first looks like a decent ref. Ironically, fenugreek is the weakest herbal galactagogue according to the 2017 article. Ach! Sorry, I have a bad habit of skimming. Wouldn't this (the first ref, "Phytotherapy research") be appropriate to add under the "research" subheading? With all appropriate cautions, of course. I know it's a smallish sample size but it's not The Ochsner Journal, whatever that is. Angryredplanet (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a more recent (2016) source (ref #19) on the lactation effect with . The first ref from 2013 (available to the non-subscribing public only as an abstract) and the second ref in a weak journal from 2011 add nothing further. --Zefr (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The first ref from Phytother Research is from 2017, not 2013. If anyone is interested in reading the full article, you can ask for it at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From the abstract, the Khan article looks like a good source. If the reliability of the source is still in question, it would be efficient (although not mandatory) to discuss that before someone spends time summarizing the article. Does anyone object to using Khan's article? and ? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Got pinged - not sure what the "Khan article" is. What's its PMID? Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 29193352 Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, looks a reasonable source - could be used (per its conclusion) to support a statement that fenugreek has at best only a marginal effect on breast milk production and that its safety has not been established. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Having only read the abstract, I felt it didn't provide information beyond what is already stated. Not sure how important it is to add it without more details in the full article. --Zefr (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory statements
It seems Wikipedia has a bias against traditional medicine, to the point it will even contradict earlier statements.

Under the safety section, it clearly notes that "There is a risk of hypoglycemia particularly in people with diabetes; it may also interfere with the activity of anti-diabetic drugs.". Hypoglycemia, for the medically ignorant, is blood sugars dropping below acceptable levels, IE the lowering of blood glucose.

However, in the section immediately following that, Wikipedia appears to change it's mind, and states "In traditional medicine, fenugreek is thought to ... reduce blood sugar levels in diabetics, although the evidence for these effects is lacking." - the key part, of course, being the claim it reduces blood sugar levels in diabetics is "lacking" is false because Wikipedia supplies a citation that "there is a risk of hypoglycemia ... in people with diabetes", which is exactly the same thing, and the fact it can impact anti-diabetic drugs whose purpose is to keep blood sugar levels stable (IE preventing it from dropping) adds to this.

Seems disingenuous at best, and dangerously misleading to diabetics at worst.
 * ✅ The NCCIH source was not felicitously summarized: while we know about fenugreek's adverse effects, what isn't known is whether it has any medical worth. Reworded to fix! Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Serious Medical Side Effects
The last sentence in the opening paragraph is very vague, and there is no reference to the issue in the section (paragraph) on Research. --Haruo (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

So what's wrong with this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, n=154, 90-day trial?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5061863

I agree with the other commenter that Wiki seems to be biased against traditional medicine. If the Wiki article is just going to parrot the NIH site, why bother having one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.162.239 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Perspiration smell
After my edit has been deleted twice, here's an explicit citing of source number 4: ”Side effects of fenugreek may include diarrhea; a maple-like smell to urine, breast milk, and perspiration; ”. I hope this makes my edit valid. Please put it back. Gil_mo (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You can find it under ”What Do We Know About Safety?” Gil_mo (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Fenugreek seed tea as a decongestant
In 1978-79 I used the seeds of Fenugreek as a decongestant. I was encouraged by my brother who used primarily alternative medicine for his medical needs. I was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked to clear up my congestion. I did not see any notes to support this on any of the information on line. My brother is an RN licensed in Texas. I am a Respiratory Therapist formerly licensed in Texas and currently licensed in Texas as a Clinicial Social Worker and Clinical Social Worker Supervisor. We both believe in peer reviewed well designed research and I understand this is only anecdotal information but I’m surprised there is no mention of it’s decongestant properties at all. Any thoughts about this from others? APROFOTA (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

'Uses' Section - Information without Citation
I was looking to edit and add credible sources to the information already under the Uses > Cooking section. When I did a search, I realized that the information below in Wiki is the same as the information on this website: https://www.diet-health.info/en/recipes/ingredients/in/gn283-fenugreek-seed. Considering this information is not cited or linked to a source, should I remove it? :
 * "Fresh fenugreek leaves are an ingredient in some curries, such as with potatoes in cuisines of the Indian subcontinent to make "aloo methi" ("potato fenugreek") curry.[15] Sprouted seeds and fenugreek greens are used in salads. When harvested as greens, fenugreek is known as samudra methi in Maharashtra, especially in and around Mumbai, where it is often grown in sandy tracts near the sea, hence the name samudra, "ocean" in Sanskrit. Samudra methi is also grown in dry river beds in the Gangetic plains. When sold as a vegetable, the young plants are harvested with their roots still attached and sold in small bundles in the markets and bazaars.[citation needed]
 * In Turkish cuisine, fenugreek seeds are used for making a paste known as çemen. Cumin, black pepper, and other spices are added into it, especially to make pastırma."

Whitestar12 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is WP:CIRC for Wikipedia as a source for itself, and also WP:PLAG. Try to find a better source, remove the text, and cite per WP:RS. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll be deleting this information and will try replacing with new information from a reliable source. Whitestar12 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Lactation stimulant? No
This revert concerning this low-quality publication was justified because Phytotherapy Research is not a WP:MEDRS source (no high-quality clinical research would be published there), and the low number of subjects (122) and inconsistent dosing cited in a low-quality meta-analysis of only 4 poorly-controlled studies does not convince or qualify as a good source per WP:BURDEN. We have two reliable overview sources for the article: NIH and Drugs.com, both of which conclude the study quality to date is insufficient to conclude anything about using fenugreek effectively (and safely) as a lactation stimulant. If there was any truth of useful effect, there would be widespread clinical use and regulatory approval, which of course do not exist. We cannot be careless by using low-quality publications as sources for content of concern to breastfeeding mothers. Zefr (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You can't just keep moving goalposts! Medline-indexed wasn't enough for you, impact factor of >5 wasn't enough for you. Now it's just your vague assertion that "no high-quality clinical research would be published" in Phytotherapy Research, which seems to hinge on your personal interpretation of "high-quality". Continuously citing WP:MEDRS does not make your case stronger; it makes it clear you are rules-lawyering to try and justify your grudge against anyone who wants WP:MED to be more than a mirror for drugs.com.

The notion that you can apply the efficient market hypothesis to the pharmaceutical industry belies your fundamental lack of understanding about the realities of modern biomedical research and the drug development/approval process.

Also included in that edit was a removal of the objectively false claim that fenugreek is not recommended by any governmental health agency. This assertion completely ignores fenugreek's well-described uses in both the Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China and the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India. Those are endorsed by governmental health agencies, by any reasonable definition of the phrase. I am reverting the original edit. WhichDoctor (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By any standard for medical content on Wikipedia, TCM and Ayurveda are considered quackery and pseudoscience, so those publications are not acceptable by WP:MEDRS. Reputable clinical research of an agent affecting lactation would be found in high-quality clinical journals, but there are such publications on PubMed. This Cochrane review reports that studies of low to moderate quality have found mixed results for a galactogogue effect for fenugreek, which is not strong enough evidence to suggest a safe and effective treatment. The studies in the review were considered inadequate "due to substantial heterogeneity and imprecision of measurements and incomplete reporting." If you wish to start a discussion among experienced medical editors, post a topic at WT:MED. Zefr (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the issue with arguing "if it worked, people would be using it", but writing off the millions of people actually using it under the banner of "quackery"? If you want to WP:WL about it, the issue of whether it is or is not recommended by any governmental health agencies is not biomedical information and therefore only requires ordinary RS. With respect to that component of the edit, it is not a question of whether you consider the Chinese or Indian pharmacopoeias to be WP:MEDRS. They are endorsed by health ministries of their countries. WhichDoctor (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to interject here as an uninvolved editor and only very occasional contributor to medical articles. First,, thank you for your contributions so far. Truly. Wikipedia, as you are surely aware, can be a bit of an intense place, and it's good to see editors become active again. You're clearly very genuinely interested in contributing to this project as a whole and in line with its norms.
 * Those guidelines and norms have a lot of epistemological assumptions baked into them that we more or less take for granted, often simply because that is the only way this project could function. They are flawed (and some may well be outright false when it comes to deeper philosophical truth, whatever that means), but they allow the project to move forward in what would otherwise be an endless online original research project in search of the Truth, which is not what this is all about. I can think of several examples where I personally very strongly believe based on my own expertise and research that what is a consensus in what we call reliable sources is woefully inadequate. For example: I have a more-than-layman's background in Chinese politics and policy and have done quite a bit of research on the crimes against humanity occurring in Xinjiang; I also believe, based on my own analysis of the circumstances and relevant international law, that what is happening there is not genocide. Even so, we have the Uyghur genocide article, and on the talk page, you can see my involvement in a massive discussion on how to frame the issue. I have a lot of issues with how e.g. NYT covers China, but there's not a whole lot I can do with that; if NYT says it, for better or for worse, we give that a lot of weight here because we have to have some sort of heuristic to adjudicate claims of reality when our job is not to actively discover what reality is. At its core, it's to catalogue how reality is described in sources that we believe, as a community, are most likely to resemble reality.
 * This problem becomes a lot more acute in medical articles, which is why WikiProject Medicine people can come off a bit aggressive about it. Zefr is correct that the body of evidence that English Wikipedia considers reliable comes decidedly down against stating the fenugreek has effects on lactation: A Cochrane Review is about as good as it gets per WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia's guidelines absolutely end up prioritizing knowledge in certain forms, particularly that created and sustained by predominantly Western institutions. That is not a perfect standard. It takes very little time to figure out holes in "if it worked, people would be using it"; at the same time, though, widespread use does not make for reliability, either. Millions currently use ivermectin as a prophylactic against COVID-19 despite the lack of substantial, comprehensive evidence that it is effective for that purpose (even though there are some small-scale (and flawed, as I understand) studies that suggest it might be) — but we do not talk about ivermectin based on those studies. We go with the medical hegemony, if you will, and while fenugreek is relatively harmless, the implications for broader public health re: COVID help illustrate, I think, why we rely on this hierarchy of sourcing as a general rule. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  05:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, there is absolutely room for description of fenugreek as an element of traditional medicine in various capacities, including claims to its supposed efficacies; that is inherently worthwhile cultural and historical information fit for an encyclopedic article. Per WP:MEDRS et al., though, that sort of information needs to be properly attributed and qualified and should not be presented as an established medical claim. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  05:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, . Totally understand your points about the "search for truth", and I'll try and find us a middle ground.
 * I gotta say, I feel like it'd be one thing if the Cochrane review found no evidence of effect, or evidence of no effect, but all it came up with was "inconclusive". That should be in the article, but if we truly have a hierarchy of sourcing, and your gold-standard source's conclusion is "¯\_(ツ)_/¯", then isn't it also worth mentioning the first-runner-up's conclusion?
 * Also: can we all agree that the "not recommended by any government health agency" is objectively false and should go?, replace it with a statement about the US FDA specifically if you want. WhichDoctor (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's definitely room for compromise. A quick outline of what I think that might look like (forgive my lazy refs): Fenugreek has been used for a variety of purposes in traditional medicine, including ________. [We could name specific practices such as TCM here as well.] In some parts of the world [India, North Africa, or wherever a source indicates], fenugreek is said to increase lactation, but systemic clinical research does not support such uses of fenugreek as effective, and medical sources generally hold that fenugreek is likely unsafe to use during pregnancy and lactation. The United States Food and Drug Administration does not approved fenugreek for any medical purposes.
 * Note that we need to tread lightly when describing its purported benefits and citing alternative medicinal sources. As is the case with a lot of alternative medical therapies, the purported benefits of fenugreek are extremely broad, and listing them all out is probably not useful (see e.g. here — listing out these dozens of supposed benefits would have the effect of impressing on the reader that fenugreek is some sort of superfood, which is not supported by high-quality clinical research). For those where there is some sort of secondary evidence, a citation thereto is appropriate, but as medical consensus does not view fenugreek as e.g. a useful aid in lactation, it's important that we don't imply an equivalence between the two views (see WP:PROPORTION.) WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's better not to list many of the specific ways fenugreek was/is used in traditional medicine, as there is no good science to justify giving them light except where reputable sources indicate, such as the NIH, Drugs.com, and two Cochrane reviews, which adequately address this generally, as should we per WP:MEDREV and scientific consensus, WP:MEDSCI. This edit reorganized the sections, and highlights the research weaknesses and invalidity of traditional practices. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to your latest addition, because the biomedical basis for these uses is obviously unattested to. If other editors wish to add the historical and contemporary uses of the herb, that should not be a problem in and of itself as long as there is not an implication that these uses are backed by high-quality research. That's what the above outlined paragraph was an attempt at getting at. This article is not about fenugreek as a medicine, after all; this article is about fenugreek. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  21:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Staple food in Galilee?
The source mentioned (Josephus) does not support the claim that fenugreek was grown as a staple food in Galilee. The quote (see ann. 9) only mentions it as an (unusual) means in warfare. In De Bello there is not more than what is quoted here.--Anfeld (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)