Talk:Garlic/Archive 2

"has been used throughout its history"?
The last sentence says that garlic "has been used throughout its history for both culinary and medicinal purposes"... modern humans have not even been around throughout its history, it's not possible for it to have been used for both culinary and medical purposes before the existence of modern humans. This statement is an error IMO. PrintedScholar (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By definition -- or at least, by one definition -- "history" implies human existence. To make it clearer, just delete "its": "throughout history." Richard K. Carson (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, "Dating back over 6,000 years, garlic is native to central Asia ..." implies that garlic has only existed for about 6,000 years. Is this talking about a cultivated variety, as distinct from the wild varieties which must surely be much older? Whatever it means, I don't think it is currently very well worded. 86.181.206.168 (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope that the revision I've just made fixes both of these valid criticisms. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Islamic view
please correct Islamic view about garlic and onion. No true relation between garlic and Adam in Islam. prophet Mohamed hate the halitosis caused by garlic and onion and other similar plants that cause this bad odor ,he states "no one eat this plant pray with us in our mosque but pray alone to avoid minding other prayer in the mosque "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.96.141.134 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this the statement that you find problematic? "In connection with the odor associated with garlic, Islam views eating garlic and subsequently going to the mosque as inappropriate because the smell from the mouth will irritate the fellow worshippers." The citation is incomplete, just "Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 65", which doesn't give enough information for checking, so I have moved it here for discussion. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Try looking, here: ~ 99.59.94.218 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

please correct the information about Islamic view about garlic and onion. As a matter of fact, Islam encourages eating garlic and onion. And we have some statements told by Prophet Mohammad (P.b.u.h) and his descenders (Imams (a.s))that encourages eating those two plants, and talk about their benefits: 1- Prophet Mohammad said: Oh Ali! eat garlic, it's if I wasn't conversing the angel, I would surely eat it. (tabakat al-mohaddetheen, abi al-shaikh, volume 2, p: 663.) OR: http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=504&hid=1291&pid=304675 2- Prophet Mohammad said: eat garlic and cure yourselves by it, since it's a cure for seventy diseases. (alferdaws (auther: al-daylamy)) 3- Abou abdellah was asked about eating garlic and onions, he answered: no problem in eating it raw or cooked. (behar al-anwar, volume 63, p249, hadith 10) and it's only not prefered (makrooh)to eat garlic on fiday, and when going to mosque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.221.221.2 (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sterility/ Natural propagation/ Feral garlic
The article states "A difficulty in the identification of its wild progenitor is the sterility of the cultivars" but also "sexual propagation of garlic is indeed possible". Which one is it? JöG (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone can clarify the whole life cycle of garlic starting from seed as in a garlic bed that one just let's go 'wild'. Is it a two year cycle like some onion varieties? Can a gardener have a garlic bed from which individuals are harvested at random times? What happens to a (feral) garlic that is left in the ground past the normal harvesting time? Note that 'wild garlic' seems to be not the same thing as it has no clove bundle ie, it has individual stems instead of a common stem (one can search for 'picture wild garlic' to get a better idea. Canbyte (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)canbyte

Garlic capital?
The article correctly states that Gilroy, California calls itself "The Garlic Capital of the World". It even hosts a popular annual "Garlic Festival". It says that most of the US gets its garlic from Gilroy. But the graph for the production of garlic directly to the right of that statement shows NO garlic production from Gilroy--or anywhere in California--in 2005? What's going on? I mean, just driving through the town you can smell the heavy garlic aroma. Surely a place that supplies most of the US has a measurable output of the food. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 23:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the map shows garlic production on the east coast only. Unless there is a valid objection, I'll remove it. --Bridgecross (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also a little ironic that Gilroy is the "Garlic Capital of the World" when the USA produces 1/60 of China's production. It stretches credulity or shows a poor sense of what the "World" might be. But I guess it's a verifiable fact that they believe this. B A Thuriaux (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

garlic hardiness
This article states that garlic is hardy in zone 8, which is not garlic's full hardiness range. In the United States, garlic is grown as far north as zone 3 (http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7317.html) and as far south as zone 10 (http://gourmetgarlicgardens.com/growsouth.htm).

76.118.84.186 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hindu mythology corrction needed
<<>> Cuffed refers to punching,I suspect that they want "cut off" in this story, but I'm not familiar with it enough to make a decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.95.71 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Corrected reference to Korean history
Researching garlic today led me to both this page and a number of references to the legend of the founding of Korea and the association of garlic with that legend. I could not find a single citation that confirmed the version of that legend posted in this article. I have replaced the incorrect information with a copy/paste from Wikipedia's page on Tan-Gun, since it matches every other reference I found to the legend of the founding of Korea. CDNRopemaster (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can guess what was there. It is true. You need to study what folklore is and how it is made and maintained. Koreans do not feel the need of mentioning and confirming the 'being' of the legend because they all know and share the legend. :) Ah, he is referenced as Dangun or Dangun Wanggem. --Queenmillennia (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed citation and text in Medicinal use and health benefits
I removed the following text and citation:
 * A randomized clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2007 found the consumption of garlic in any form did not reduce blood cholesterol levels in patients with moderately high baseline cholesterol levels.

and the citation on the grounds that:
 * It's a single trial, and the text was followed by a meta-analysis of high-quality trials that is more recent. This seems consistent with WP:MEDRS which says to favor meta-analyses.
 * The text itself here seems slightly problematic because it shows a misunderstanding of how science works, the study did not find that "the consumption of garlic in any form did not reduce blood cholesterol levels", rather, the study failed to find evidence that garlic in the forms tested produced a statistically significant reduction in blood cholesterol.

So I've removed this. Cazort (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a higher-quality systematic review and meta-analysis from the Cochrane Library available at . We should probably cite that one instead. MastCell Talk 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This "meta-analysis" only selects 2 trials for analysis, and throws out one of them, so it's really just like a critical review of a single trial and as such I wouldn't consider it very useful. Unless there are serious problems with the meta analysis already cited, which studies 26 trials, I'd be hesistant to draw contradictory conclusions from this second "meta-analysis".  Cazort (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

organization/redundancy
This article is spoiled by too many cooks, especially the later sections, "Properties" being the worst of the mishmash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.3 (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Juice vs. Pulp, allergies, and bad breath
I have read in a cookbook somewhere that many of the adverse effects of garlic are actually associated with ingestion of the pulp and fiber of the garlic bulb. Some cooks, such as in northern Italy, carefully extract the garlic juice for flavoring, and avoid mashing the pulp into the food, or cook with cracked whole cloves, which are removed before serving. This technique certainly results in a more delicate flavor, but it is also claimed to substantially eliminate the hangover of halitosis after eating a meal. Can anybody confirm this, and find some WP:RS that can be cited? Hungry-but-sensitive diners want to know! Reify-tech (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In Islam, it is forbidden for Muslims who have eaten raw garlic to pray in a mosque
In Islam, it is not considered moral to go to a masjid (mosque) having smelly bodies and clothes because it is gathering place that can be unpleasant for others, not forbidden. And the saying of The Prophet is not about the garlic but it is about onion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.227.177 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material
Some of the material that was removed from the article

Animal studies, and some early research studies in humans, have suggested possible cardiovascular benefits of garlic. Many studies found garlic supplementation reduced accumulation of cholesterol on the vascular walls of animals and in humans.

Hi Alexbrn, you removed a bunch of material citing WP:MEDRS. Although I've been on Wikipedia for awhile, I'm not very familiar with this policy. Will you please explain why none of the sources above can be used in the article. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of them are primary sources, which we shouldn't use; others are old when we have (and are using) up-to-date sources for the subject they treat. Alexbrn talk 06:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are using some old sources currently (#33-#37). Regarding this sentence above, Many studies found garlic supplementation reduced accumulation of cholesterol on the vascular walls of animals and in humans, are you saying that none of sources are useable in the article and you will revert me if I use them? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you'd be taking it upon yourself to peform a secondary analysis of primary research, thereby making Wikipedia a secondary publication (which it isn't) based on your original work. We should be writing at the tertiary level by summarizing the accepted views as found in good secondary sources: that's core policy, and is expanded in detail in WP:MEDRS in relational to medical content. Alexbrn talk 06:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of the 16 sources above, which ones are primary? Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2,5,6,7,8,9 ... etc. WP:MEDRS sets out how to identify primary material. Perhaps, using MEDRS, you could complete the list? Also we don't use outdated reviews or things from iffy altmed journals. Alexbrn talk 06:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias
The whole article is too much biased to the negative, completely overseeing the positive health effects observable in the mediterranian kitchen, where nobody complaints about "bad breath" filling here half of the paragraphs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.199.4.45 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please find the scientific studies exposing the health benefits in scientific form. (You'll have a very hard time, as I have, because there really aren't many).  And I'm sorry, but WebMD doesn't count....they're worse than tabloid at this point.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

lol. That's exactly what my concern was. Apparently, their are a few anti-garlic fanatics who are supervising this article bureaucratically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.122.130 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Health benefits." There are none which science is aware of. If you have scientific research references and citations to offer which actually found any such medical benefits, please post them on Talk:: here. Thanks. Oh: And "anti-garlic" made me laugh. :) As if there were such a thing. :) Damotclese (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The anti-garlic point of view is provided by closeted vampires. Less garlic in the world, more peace of mind for vampires. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a Health Benefits section
This article needs a section on health benefits of garlic, for which there are countless sources. Instead it seems to over-emphasize halitosis and body odor, which is relatively trivial.


 * Disagree: the section on Nutrients and research covers what is known about health research on garlic. There are no scientifically confirmed "benefits" of consuming garlic or any other food, just exaggerations by quacks or myths and speculations which do not meet the Wikipedia requirement of WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS.--Zefr (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You are plainly wrong. I can reference you more than 100, recent, scientific studies that support the health benefits of garlic. The Sloan Memorial Cancer institute, and Cancer.gov, both cite the evidence to support the anti-carcinogenic properties of garlic. These institutions are not associated with 'Quackery', and based on the available evidence, they are clearly open to the idea that garlic has health benefits. This article needs to include reliable sources that support the many potential health benefits of garlic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.122.130 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review the discussion of WP:MEDREV. This is what applies in Wikipedia to the combination of quackery, myth, basic research and preliminary clinical evidence concerning garlic or any food or ingredient. WP:MEDASSESS summarizes what every well-trained scientist or skeptical consumer should know: there is no food that prevents cancer or any complex or simple disease.--Zefr (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is not unambiguous, that garlic or other foods, do not fight cancer - there is no notable organization, which plainly claim that diet cannot fight cancer. If that was the case, clinical trials for various fruits and vegetables would no longer persist. Ironically, Garlic has perhaps the best clinical track record against cancer and fighting against minor ailments. It should be your responsibility to report evidence both ways - not to make any assertive conclusion, irrespective of evidence. 71.41.122.130 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Write a draft with your references complying with WP:SECONDARY and demonstrating anti-cancer evidence in phase 3 clinical trials, and post it here for review and edits.--Zefr (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no documented health benefits found by legitimate scientific studies, while on the other hand there is a huge amount of woo woo occult beliefs about garlic having extensive magical health powers which include being a cure pretty much for anything and everything, often "backed-up" with mere anecdotal testimony by believers -- who may or my not be actual medical doctors, none of which are actually backed up by testable, falsifiable clinical, laboratory, or statistical science. (If there were any, they would have been supplied in the extant article years, decades ago.)
 * What might be relevant to the article is some history about the unfounded beliefs about the unfounded medical benefits beyond mere nutrition, however that's an aside that would sully the article's accuracy and summary about the plant. Alternatively the Quackery page, Quackwatch page, or Traditional_medicine page would probably be a better place to add such belief, including some of the reasons why some people believe that garlic has medicinal properties (hint: It's entirely due to the smell.) Damotclese (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm new to the Garlic page, but I have to say that I'm finding it hard to disagree. The Garlic "fans" (or whatever they are) seem to be engaging in a kind of circular-citation reasoning.  I'm not at all sure what's fueling it either, because true clinical studies showing any demonstrable effect simply don't exist.  There have been many studies that play the weasel-wording game; Those are rampant.  (See WebMD if you doubt me....the place is a trainwreck.)  And some studies will provide very loose cum hoc or post hoc reasoning, entirely sans causation.  But real double-blind analysis showing garlic matters?  No there, despite how much you wish it to be.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical use
Until a couple of days ago the third paragraph of the Historical Use section read “''Garlic was relatively common in Mediterranean cuisine but rare in English cooking. '' The first part I didn't have a source for, and the second felt like trying to prove a negative, but I added some detail from a 1960's cookery book as corroboration. This was deleted, along with the original sentence, with the edit summary “citing the obvious; source is questionable as WP:RS for history", which leads me to ask how exactly is a 1960's cookery book an unreliable source for a comment on the state of 1960's cookery? As for “citing the obvious”, if this applies to the comment on Mediterranean cooking, it is no less obvious to Britons of a certain age that garlic was rarely used British cooking up until a few decades ago. Also, the sentence in question only acquired that form with this edit a couple of months ago, where the order (and the requirement for proof) was reversed and a lengthy digression about the 1300 Assizes (which, it transpires is actually about herring, not garlic) was added: Before that the article said “''Garlic was rare in traditional English cuisine (though it is said to have been grown in England before 1548) and has been a much more common ingredient in Mediterranean Europe. " '' (the citation was requested by this user who is, it seems, from Italy, so actually the last assertion may not be as obvious as all that) So I have reinstated the original sentence, and also restored the original form, as that was the stable version of it from well before the 2012 cite request; it was in that form in May 2005, and all elements of it were present from when the article was written, in April 2002. As for now, if the comment about English cooking needs any corroboration I suggest I have done already offered it; otherwise it seems the 1911 Britannica will bear it out. And if in fact it is “obvious”, then where's the problem? And why is that a reason to delete it? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

High Bulk Index (HBI) Garlic Powder
On Good Eats episode s06e08 "Dip Madness", Alton Brown says something about "High Bulk Index" (HBI) garlic powder. Here is a link that I found about it on the internet. If someone can find a better reference, then you might want to add it to the article. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 11:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hindu
Hindus don't ear garlic because it is perceived as evil. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, that's wrong. :) Hindus avoid garlic during Chaturmas, a part of the year where they avoid garlic, onions, and other foods which have properties that taste and smell "powerful." The reasons may be simple or complex but they boil down to an occult belief that such foods "divert" or cause problems with "energy" that many cultists believe exists in "the spirit realm." They don't "avoid it because it's evil." :) Damotclese (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Uses: Culinary Uses Bias. Excludes Latin America
I noticed that there was no mention of Latin America, specifically the Caribbean in this part of the article. I feel that in the paragraph that starts "Garlic is an important component..." should change the phrases Central and South America to Latin America in order to include the Caribbean and Mexico. Garlic is very important in the Latin American community as seen by the Latin American cuisine page, as well as articles dedicated to sofrito and mofongo. By just mentioning primarily Asian communities in the paragraph, this excludes other cultures, like Latin America, that also use garlic in many of their dishes. Further, I think a sentence should be added in that paragraph to show, similar to other paragraphs that add information about Asian cuisine, the importance of garlic in sofritos and mofongos. Aramos04 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You've made the case and provided sources. Why not make the edit yourself? It would help if the Root book had an URL to English content. --Zefr (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just added it! But I'm wondering why the book doesn't appear to be English to you. For me the book was in English, as was the site. Any reason why it wouldn't appear English? I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure about any possible solutions.Aramos04 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the Google book which will allow Wikipedia users to read the content you select. You just need to select the page best representing the appropriate content --Zefr (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)