Talk:Isatis tinctoria

myths
It might be prudent to include a blurb discounting the legend that woad made warriors especially fierce or insensitive to pain.

Here's an example quote taken from a web site:

"The blue part of the Woad is not any sort of hallucinogen, despite lore to the contrary. The raw sap crushed from fresh Woad leaves sometimes causes surface skin numbness, slight dizziness, and in certain bloodlines, a vague impression of less danger or more confidence. Since the preparation process for Woad dye required some form of ammonia or fermentation to "fix" it, there is some evidence that horse urine was used in ancient times. If this is the case, warriors using the dye may have carried something of a stink."

Taken from: http://members.aol.com/methosela/WOAD.htm Please don't add this information as is since I dont know the site owners reprint policy.Xiaou 23:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's some interesting text from a writer who has tried woad as a body paint, and it didn't work: [] . Cavort 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've experimented with woad - it fails miserably as body paint and tattoo pigment. It can create horrible scars.  Tattoo artist Pat Fish had some bad experiences with it, IIRC.  It stains the skin less than does food coloring (which is what many of the Re-enactment groups actually use for their "woad" body paint).  I worked with a number of people over the years to test different formulas, trying to try get it to stain the skin, and we never got it to work very well.  It also never caused numbness, confidence, dizziness, or induced any sort of spiritual, religious or hallucinogenic state - and the group of test subjects were all the sorts who were inclined to want to experience that sort of thing from it ;-)  So, yes, I've added some of the debunking and sourced it to the article Cavort suggests above.  I still use woad for painting on wood and fabric, but not on skin.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 07:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

species
Isatis indigotica is incorrectly used as a synonym for Isatis tinctoria, but it is not simply an incorrect name, it's a separate species in its own right. Isatis indigotica is a Chinese species. 67.168.59.171 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is problematic. There does seem to be a Chinese plant with the name Isatis indigotica. Several online dictionaries of Chinese medicinal plants (including this one and this one) give 菘蓝 as Isatis tinctoria and 草大青 as I. indigotica. It's highly likely they all just copied the relevant section from each other, but still there is contradictory information out there so if a real botanist could clear up the confusion that would be great! longboatgirl 78.52.224.127 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some disagreement. The major databases list them as synonyms, but it looks like newer research has separated them again . I don't know how accepted either position is. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

problem with cited source; can we find a better one?
The page "The Problem of the Woad" has some errors and questionable statements. Can someone with more access to historical sources find a source that keeps the basic point but avoids these? Some problems I found: The page says: "However, that it would be antiseptic in it's [sic] BLUE form is doubtful, at least not in ancient times. It appears to require ammonia to become indigo, and their sources would have been urine and dung." Dung would be nasty, but urine is actually quite sterile unless the source has an urinary tract infection. Urine-derived ammonia was used to clean clothes in ancient Rome. Ammonia made from clean urine wouldn't make woad dye harmful if it wasn't already. Also, the page claims that an antiseptic would be useless anyway because "in battle you are not talking about some scratches that might become infected." It was much easier for ancient medicine to deal with binding wounds and setting broken bones than with infections, so it seems that antiseptic on the skin would be valuable. Also, it's an EXTREME stretch to get iron dye out of the "ferronque" in the Claudius Claudianus quote. The Latin word for iron is VERY often used to mean "blade".Vultur (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The source "The Problem of the Woad" does not meet our criteria for reliable sources. It's self-published and does not appear to have been subject to any sort of peer review. Angr (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So why is it still being used as a reference? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * scholar.google.com indicates that the matter has been discussed quite a bit. this abstract seems to be an adequate citation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't doubting the facts as presented, but only the quality of the references.72.200.151.13 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried to address this by citing the peer-reviewed article that refers to possible use of copper pigments on the Lindow Man. I've also tried to include several peer-reviewed articles or published books/book chapters to supplement claims made in the self published citations. This is my first time doing major edits to an article, so I hope their acceptable! DrEmmaGrey (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

US invasive species
A gaping hole here is that Dyer's Woad has become an invasive species in the US (http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/database/cipm-database/?cmd=process&keywords=woad&resourceType=0&source=0) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.204.35 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

the color woad vs. the color indigo?
The lead section states that the term "woad" is used to describe the color produced from woad dye. The article later asserts that woad dye is just a different source of indigo dye. Does this mean that the color woad is exactly the same as the color indigo? Do any color systems differentiate between the two (For example, pantone)? Not knowing any better, it sounds to me as though woad as a color is just a localized synonym for the color indigo. If I am correct in this, I'd like to clarify the lead section to mention indigo, instead of just "a blue dye", as it currently states. -Verdatum (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

al gore
maybe we should put a south park reference in here haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.232.83 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not just picts and gaules
Many other tribes, such as german ones for example, knew a blue war paint made of woad! Please add this too or the article could be seen as biased! --89.50.29.243 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to already be there in the "History of Woad" section. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Common name
Shouldn't the name of this article be Woad? That obviously the more common name, and although Woad redirects to Insatis tinctoria, that shouldn't be necessary if most searches will be for the term Woad. I'm not really familiar with this area, but what I suggest seems like the common method, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Thank you. — InvaderCito (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think at current state we are conflating two plants here. In the medical reserach communities this plant are treated different and should not be shown as one here (e.g. woad). Even in the current state we are stating that isatis indigotica and insatis tinctoria are the same. Ther are not. Isatis indigotica Fort. (Chinese woad) is a species with an ancient and well-documented history as an indigo dye and medicinal plant. It is often confused with Isatis tinctoria L. (European woad), a medicinal plant in Europe. Here, the differences between I. indigotica and I. tinctoria are systematically described:
 * https://molhort.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43897-021-00021-w 2A02:810D:1500:78B4:B547:A7FE:4B93:67FA (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Popular films have no place in a scholarly discussion ...
... of ancient and historical references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that next time, when you delete something from an article, you explain your reason briefly in an edit summary (in the space below the text of the article in Edit Mode, just above where you click "Preview" or "Save"). It's all right also to leave a comment on the Talk page, as you did.CorinneSD (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Native to Europe or Not?
God, Wikipedia can be bloody contradictory at times.

According to [|this] article

"The first archaeological finds of woad seeds date to the Neolithic. The seeds have been found in the French cave of l'Audoste, Bouches-du-Rhône, France. Impressions of the seeds of Färberwaid (Isatis tinctoria L.) or German indigo, of the plant family Brassicaceae, have been found on pottery in the Iron Age settlement of the Heuneburg, Germany. Seed and pod fragments have also been found in Iron Age pit at Dragonby, South Humberside, United Kingdom.[4] The Hallstatt burials of the Hochdorf Chieftain's Grave and Hohmichele contained textiles dyed with woad dye."

But according to [|this] article

"In temperate climates including Europe, indigo was obtained primarily from woad (Isatis tinctoria), an indigenous plant of Assyria and the Levant which has been grown in Northern Europe over 2,000 years"

"Over 2,000 years doesn't really cover the Neolithic now, does it? If anything the second article suggests a rather later introduction of the species than that.  Possibly no later than 1000 to 500 years BCE.  So which is it?  Was Isatis Tinctoria introduced to Europe from the region of the Levant and Assyria during the Neolithic; or was it introduced to Europe from that region during the Iron Age? If it's the former I suggest editing the article to reflect a greater time range (one more in keeping with the span of time from the Neolithic to today).  If it's the latter then what's the source of the French seeds?

Mark76 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)