Talk:Nigella sativa

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdianan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

The image used (Nigella sativa a1.jpg) does not show Nigella sativa, but N. damascena, recognizable by the finely dissected bracts just below the flowers. I have already contacted the image's author selso and hope he will replace the image as soon as possible- -- Andreas G. Heiss 12:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just exchanged the image with one of my own :-) -- Andreas G. Heiss 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultivation

How is Nigella Sativa cultivated?

Black cumin as explosive sensitizer?

There h ave been reports from Jordan of "Ground Black Cumin" being used as a sensitizer for bomb-making. Nowhere in the news reports can I find a mention of whether this refers to Nigella sativa, or Bunium persicum, also called black cumin, but the other Jordanian references to black cumin I can find seem to refer to Nigella, not Bunium, where it can be determined at all. Also, it would seem that Nigella is more characteristic of middle eastern cuisine than Bunium. Is there someone who is truly familiar with the situation in Jordan who could say which it is and edit the articles (hopefully with references)? -- WormRunner 23:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

References?

Does anyone have a reference to support the claim that kalonji was found in Tutenkhamen's tomb? Or is Tsalman referring perhaps to the essential oil?

Actually, the whole article should have more references. TheGoblin 15:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The information is given at following sites but their authenticity is doubtful http://www.tonkatinkers.com/red_tea_benefitstk4.htm http://www.scentbyspirit.com/catalog/product.php?productid=740 --Dr M Tariq Salman 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have found a published cite about Nigella sativa having been found in King Tut's tomb, & have added it to the article. -- llywrch 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Siyah dan/nigella is widely used in Uyghur bread. Uyghurs think it is good for hair. They grow in the yard.

The statement "In herbal medicine, Nigella sativa has hypertensive, carminative, and anthelminthic properties. They are eaten by elephants to aid digestion." certainly needs an attribution -- and clarification of grammar: they what? seeds? plants? I almost feel it possible that the "They are eaten by elephants..." could have been inserted as a joke.

M Lou102WK 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Is Nigella pronounced with 'g' like guitar or like gem? --89.1.42.116 09:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say velar as in guitar, because it is a Latin word. 89.247.225.158 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No - it's a soft g, Nye-jella. In British English at least - qv Nigella Lawson FlagSteward 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Botanists and gardeners say "Nye-jella" as above, and that pronounciation is given in many garden books and on the Dave's Garden site (spelled somewhat less unambiguously). FlagSteward, a note on pronounciation, giving yours, would be a good addition to the article.

M Lou102WK 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A CURE FOR CANCER???????

Even on in a wiki article, which nobody really takes seriously, it seems irresponsible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.176.112 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Here is a link to Nigella sativa's use in addressing some aspects of Pancreatic C.A. I wouldn't call this irresponsible, just incomplete as this aspect of its physiological effects is still being identified within western scientific paradigms. http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Middle-Eastern-herb-shows-potential-against-pancreatic-cancer/?c=9w7rdplaUdjN2ApFgjNkvg%3D%3D Dr Ian Niven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian niven (talk • contribs) 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

here is another reliable source that nigella sativa could treat pancreatic cancer --> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768141 i think it worth to be re-mentioned in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.212.35 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Culinary use

The use of this seed in flatbreads from Turkey, Ethiopia, and the Middle East needs to be mentioned. Badagnani 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge in from Black cumin

There was a whole load of not really-referenced stuff on the Black cumin page, which didn't belong on a disambig page. I've no idea how reliable any of it is, it needs a big copyedit if nothing else but I figured if I dumped it in the Folklore section here someone could sort it out..... FlagSteward 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Added additional spelling

I added "blackseed" as a spelling because it is often spelled that way, but googling it as "blackseed" did not return references to the wikipedia article on nigella sativa. Presumably, google's webcrawler will eventually pick it up now that I've added the additional spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosura (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Significant copy edit. Mostly wikifying, but some re-ordering and removal of duplication. The following sections were cut out as they duplicated material that was better expressed elsewhere:

This Biblical herb, popular in breads and cakes, is used medicinally to purge the body of worms and parasites. An Arab proverb calls it "the medicine for every disease except death." These seeds taste hot to the tongue and are sometimes mixed with peppercorns in Europe."

== In Other Languages ==

Arabic Sinouj, Sanouz, Shunez, Habbat elbaraka, Sauda, Habbah, Kamun, Aswad.

Armeniian Shoushma Catalan Sanuj Croatian Cmi kumin, Crnog kima. Czech Cerny kmin, Cernucha Dutch Nigelle Narduszaad. English Estonian Farsi Finnish French German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Indonesian Italian Latvian Lithuanian Kannada Malay Malayalam Marathi Norweigian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Chernuska Singhalese Kaladuru Slovak Cernuska siata Slovenian Vzhodna Crnika Spanish Nigulla, Pasionara Swedish Svartkummin Tamil Karunkiragam Telegu Nellajilakaira Turkish Corekoto, Coreotu

Outstanding queries: external links aren't great and still some possible duplication in Islam section - are the "Bukhari" references the same?

Pdch (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Liquors

Are there some special brands of liquor that are based on the herb, or is it more commonly used in herbal liquors that are composed of multiple herbs? -- cimon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.53.195 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the toxic and paralytic effects?

There should be information about the dosage due the constituents niugelline and melanthin, that are dangerous in large doses. If someone has knowledge about just how much of the oil or seeds could be harmful, i think there are alot of people who could use that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.73.251 (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Black cumin vs.Black caraway

I am wondering about the accuracy of the text as it stands now. The following text has been there for some time:

The seeds are frequently referred to as black cumin (as in Assamese: kaljeera or kolajeera or Bengali kalo jeeray), In south Indian language Kannada it is called "Krishna Jeerige", but this is also used for a different spice, Bunium persicum. Original black cumin seed is Carum bulbocastanum.[2]

In English-speaking countries with large immigrant populations, it is also variously known as kaljeera (Assamese কালজীৰা kalzira or ক’লাজীৰা kolazira), kalo jira (Bengali: কালোজিরা kalojira, black cumin), ...

I was puzzled by this whole development, as I've always thought that "black cumin" and "black caraway" were distinct spices. So reading this was a surprise. I just purchased two bags of spices from an Indian store. Both are distributed by the same company specializing in Indian products. One is labeled Kala Jeera, the other Kallonji: Graines d'onions. The latter is a perfect match for the seeds displayed here and is exactly the seeds I recognize as black caraway or chernushka (or charnushka, according to some Russian sources). Black cumin is a disambiguation piece that lists these seeds and Bunium persicum as two alternatives. Bunium persicum is exactly what I am looking at that's labeled Kala jeera. So I am looking for some expertise from people familiar with Bengali and other sources and, particularly, with local cooking--is the description of Nigella seeds as "black cumin" accurate? It makes little sense that two different sets of seeds with very distinct flavor profiles would go under the same name within a region where both are used extensively. It's certainly not impossible (just take a look at the OED lemmas for "shrimp", "crayfish" and "lobster"!).

Nigella sativa is, by far, the more commonly distributed spice. There is no question that it's been identified as "black cumin" (a.k.a. "fennel flower") for a long time. It's been known and used in Europe under this name for centuries--the OED listing cites sources going back to 1648.

black cumin n. fennel flower, Nigella sativa, a plant producing small black seeds used as a spice; (also) (more fully black cumin seed) the seeds themselves; also called Roman coriander.

Note that black cumin is used here (OED has no record of black caraway, although that's the name under which N. sativa seeds go under at commercial bakeries, e.g., see the King Arthur Flour catalog). So if there is an error, it goes back quite a long way. New York Times mentions "black caraway" in articles on July 12, 1963 and February 29, 1968. "Black cumin" can be found in Chicago Tribune for May 18, 1934 and in Ludington Daily News for May 10, 1944.

I am not so much concerned about the English term for the seeds--English names for plants or plant product of foreign origin are often confused and inconsistent. I would like someone to verify non-English names, particularly those cognate to kala jeera. This is not a trivial task--one cannot simply look up an item in a dictionary, because this is precisely how the potential errors might have started to begin with. It requires understanding of local languages and cultures, which, unfortunately, also borders on original research. But if it can be verified that local Indian names for Nigella sativa do indeed include (or do not include) the names cognate to kala jeera that would justify the reference to these seeds as black cumin. If, however, it can be found that there is a sharp distinction between kallonji and kala jeera in all parts of the subcontinent where these seeds are use, this would correct a 500-year old wrong. --Alex.deWitte (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Common Names

While the list of common names is lengthy and commendable, I am finding it difficult to parse. This section is very confusing to me. For example, I don't understand the phrase "kalonji (Hindi/Urdu कलौंजी kalauṃjī or كلونجى/कलोंजी kaloṃjī)". I see a word, kalonji, external to the parenthesis which I assume is meant to support the external term, but inside the parentheses are two terms, kalauṃjī and kaloṃjī, which to my eye are only distantly related to kalonji because 'm' (labial) and 'n' (coronal or dorsal) are dissimilar (at least, to me). Furthermore, in the second term, I see both Indic script and Arabic script separated with a slash, but no indication of language(s) to which either may belong. Please attribute the language, or at least the alphabet(s) in use, for each common name.

Kibi78704 (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

See what you think of it now. Hindi and Urdu use the same word for many culinary terms ("kitchen Hindustani"), but use different scripts. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Kalonji (Urdu: کلونجی) common names removed from the main article to here. For the English Wikipedia, we are not obligated to have to parse so many regional names; see WP:ENGLISH. --Zefr (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The seeds are frequently referred to as black cumin (as in Assamese: kaljeera or kolajeera or Bengali kalo jeera), but black cumin /kala jeera is different from Nigella sativa (kali jeeri). Original black cumin is Carum Bulbocastanum. In Kannada it is called [ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಜೀರಿಗೆ] Krishna jeerige, but this is also used for a different spice, Bunium persicum.

In English-speaking countries with large immigrant populations, it is also variously known as الحبّة السوداء al-ḥabbah al-sawdāʼ 'the black seed' or حبّة البركة ḥabbat al-barakah 'the seed of blessing' (Arabic), kaljeera (Assamese কালজীৰা kalzira or ক’লাজীৰা kolazira), kalo jira (Bengali: কালোজিরা kalojira, black cumin), μαυρόκοκκος mavrokokkos 'black seed' (Cypriot Greek), garacocco (Cypriot Turkish), קצח qetsaḥ (Hebrew), kalonji (Hindi कलौंजी kalauṃjī or कलोंजी kaloṃjī, Urdu كلونجى kalonjī) or mangrail (Hindi मंगरैल maṃgarail),kalo jeera (Nepali: कालो जीरा), jintan hitam (Indonesian), reşke (Kurdish), काळा जिरा kāḷā jirā (Marathi), سیاه‌دانه siyāh dāne (Persian), чернушка chernushka or калинджи kalindzhi (Russian), கருஞ்சீரகம் karuñcīrakam (Tamil), çörek otu (Turkish), karim jeerakam (കരിംജീരകം) in Malayalam or කළු දුරු in Sinhala, karto jeera in Beary, ( စမုန်နက် , samoun ne') in Myanmar.

The Turkish name [çörek otu] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: tu (help) literally means "bun's herb" from its use in flavouring the çörek buns. Such braided-dough buns are widespread in the cuisines of Turkey and its neighbours (see Tsoureki τσουρέκι). In Bosnian, the Turkish name for N. sativa is spelled as čurekot. The seed is used in Bosnia, and particularly its capital Sarajevo, to flavour pastries (Bosnian: somun) often baked on Muslim religious holidays.

nigella sativa or Nigella

Black Cumin,Fennel,& so forth are foreign & misleading, call it what it is: nigella. It is nothing like cumin fennel,or onion,so why dither?101.170.85.79 (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Section removed

I'm cutting the "Traditional medicine" section for several reasons. First, it cites only a primary source. Second, it is not about Nigella sativa. If someone wants to add it to the appropriate article, be my guest, but I'm not doing it without a secondary source. I've preserved it below. Krychek (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In the Unani Tibb system of medicine, black cumin (Carum bulbocastanum) is regarded as a valuable remedy for a number of diseases. In Islamic writing, a hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah says "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is healing in black seed (al-ḥabbah al-sawdāʼ) for all diseases except death.'""71". Sahih Bukhari. Vol. 7. 592.

Someone tried to re-insert this information into the article, once again with only a primary source. That primary source only mentions "black cumin," with no evidence to prove that it is referring specifically to Nigella sativa; there are other plants that go by that name. Original research (i.e., what you think you know) and vague primary sources are not sufficient grounds to add information to Wikipedia! Krychek (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

dear Krychek, that source refers to nigella sativa, it is obvious. thanks. Grandia01 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of this article states that Bunium bulbocastanum is another plant often referred to as black cumin, so no, it's not obvious. And again, you've only cited a primary source, which is unacceptable. If you are serious about this, you need to find a secondary source that talks about the significance of Nigella sativa (not just black cumin) in Islam. Or at least a source providing evidence that the black cumin mentioned in your primary source is indeed Nigella sativa. Krychek (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Medical Usage

there is a lot of scientific publication mentioned that nigella sativa have a powerful medical effect on some disease or even cancer. But why there is almost no segment to talk about this in this wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.61.195 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Because those publications are based entirely on words from the hadith, which is the opposite of a scientific publication.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline, which also is sound scientific reasoning, follows WP:MEDRS. This document makes it clear that scientific and clinical evidence must be a high standard to assert anti-disease effects.--Zefr (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be a section referring I g it's special place and history in Muslim culture, doesn't necessary have to state the claims made as fact Roamingkurd (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Roamingkurd: yes, that would be good, but it must be referenced to a source, and not just be a personal view. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Medical claims

@Hyperforin: hi, please read WP:MEDRS carefully; it's essential guidance on adding any medicine-related information to an article. In the case of Nigella sativa, the abstract of the source you gave says "We hope this review will encourage interested researchers to conduct further preclinical and clinical studies to evaluate the anticancer activities of N. sativa, its active constituents and their derivatives." The paper is not a review of high quality studies, and does not establish the noteworthiness of the information to Wikipedia readers, as opposed to medical researchers. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

<redact>--Hyperforin (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The existence of numerous studies and reviews doesn't of itself create acceptability according to MEDRS. There are numerous studies and reviews of all kinds of doubtful herbal treatments in journals outside the mainstream. The question is whether the primary studies that are reviewed, as well as the review itself, are of sufficient quality and meet notability requirements. Consider the Butt & Sultan (2010) paper you used as a source. What actual evidence of efficacy does it present? The first sentence of the conclusion says it all: "Medicinal plants are proven health pills encouraging human beings to seek natural cures."

Who am I to decide what is notable? Just one Wikipedia editor expressing my view; I may be right or I may be wrong. How it works here is that when we disagree, we discuss and reach a consensus. Don't edit war by re-adding removed material; discuss here and explain why you think you're right. You can also ask for help at WT:MED where there are editors, including Jytdog, with lots of experience in this area. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing more to discuss. The two references are reviews in journals. They summarize a multitude of primary research. Personal editorial biases don't matter. The statement you included is wholly irrelevant. It is entirely apparent right now that personal prejudices are affecting edits. Your arbitrary criteria of notability and inclusion are arbitrary. There are many more reviews that I can easily add. --Hyperforin (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The only prejudice I have is that we should not lead readers to believe unsubstantiated claims about the possible effectiveness of treatments.

Yes, the references are reviews in journals, and they summarize primary research, although if you read them carefully, they contain a lot of additional speculation. The key point is that if a review looks at many papers all of which say "X may have potential benefits for the treatment of Y" without solid evidence, what does the review amount to? What has to be judged is the quality of the research that was reviewed. I just don't see the quality of research I would want to see used to support inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Anyway, I've made my point; let's see what others think.

The more important point is that once a discussion begins, you should wait for it to conclude before re-adding material. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hyperforin, the nature of WIkipedia is that we talk about stuff. Of course there is stuff to talk about. About the two sources you have brought, PMID 22083982 and PMID 20694927 - yes these are reviews published in the biomedical literature. They are also of somewhat shockingly low quality. It is unclear why you want to bring such poor sources into the project. Would you explain that please? This is the heart of the matter. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the basis for classifying them as being of low quality? As for the speculation within the reviews, I consider it irrelevant; it has only a coincidental association with the goodness of a review. International authors simply don't know any better than to exclude speculation from their article. It doesn't in any way mean that their review is bunk. All I added is "have been studied for their anticancer activities", but some editors have a problem with something even this benign. I did not say that NS cures cancer; in fact I'm reasonably sure it won't. Which reviews among these do you like? Your criteria for the goodness of a review must also be substantiated by what is explicitly documented at WP:MEDRS, but is it? --Hyperforin (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly? I read them, and they are crappy. When I am looking for sources and I come across stuff like this, I just pass over it. We really do want to provide readers with high quality information - we aspire to that. Both of these sources are just trashy. Sources drive content and also provide readers with a place to go find more information. If I had a friend interested in this plant I would never hand them these two refs. That's my general approach to WP. The way we reject sources like per MEDRS is that the journals in which they are published have very low impact factor. These are poor articles that clearly could not have been published in a high quality journal. Please don't press to use them. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

They were written by Middle Eastern researchers who apparently don't know or care about making a review appear professional per Western standards. But it so happens that NS is studied predominantly in Islamic countries. Does that mean I should throw the baby with the bathwater? As a reader, I am not going to ignore research marred by speculation if it's otherwise sound. If you're claiming that the impact factor of the journal is low, then we need a quantitative way of querying this value, and an established cutoff threshold to go with it. As for the impact of the articles, did you even note that per Google Scholar, PMID 22083982 is cited by 92 articles and PMID 20694927 by 82 -- how could this even be possible if what you say is true? --Hyperforin (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The quality has nothing to do with the origin of the authors; crappiness knows no international borders. I don't know what to say here except that I am disappointed. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As requested earlier, I need a quantitative metric for querying the quality of a journal, and for this to be included on the MEDRS page. Failing this, all the talk here is a reflection of personal biases, and we will have a continued revert war. Is that what you want? I have also proposed various related reviews for inclusion but have not received feedback for the same. Do you also understand that there are ~54 primary studies on NS for cancer, yet you choose to remove a simple statement acknowledging this truth from the article? It is absurd that I have to justify it at all. --Hyperforin (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed there are many primary studies on Nigella sativa extracts, combinations, etc. No-one disputes this. Is there a sound review of these studies? Not a paper that basically summarizes and repeats the claims made in the primary sources, but one that evaluates them and their conclusions? I suggest you look at Garlic#Research. There is a widespread belief (in this case in non-Islamic cultures) in the efficacy of garlic in the treatment of all kinds of ailments and there are large numbers of primary studies. Wikipedia's treatment is based on meta-analyses and a Cochrane review. Do these exist for Nigella sativa?

It's not helpful to continue to accuse those who disagree with you of "personal biases". It's not a "personal bias" to say that the sources in the case of garlic are of much better quality than the sources presented so far for Nigella sativa. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no MEDRS requirement for meta-analyses or Cochrane reviews, so bringing them up is a moot point. The requirement is for secondary sources, and it was satisfied. As you say, perhaps the referenced reviews were not evaluating conclusions, just summarizing them, but I see no real basis for why this is a problem. Your ivory tower standards are yours alone. As for garlic, it is significantly better studied than NS, so a 1:1 comparison doesn't apply. --Hyperforin (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS says "Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies." We not going to be sourcing unusual claims to shitty sources (like zero-impact journals). Why would we possibly want to? Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If you've been following the discussion, it has been documented that the two referenced reviews have 92+82 other articles that cite them. How's that for impact? What is your definition of "reliable" or "reputable" really? How do I know it's not arbitrary? --Hyperforin (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It is making me wince to see you writing here so fiercely and ignorantly, Hyperforin. Impact Factor is a number. For The American Journal of Chinese Medicine it was 2.625 in 2013; for Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition it was 5.5 in 2013. For comparison, Nature (journal) is 41. This is what I mean about low quality journals. Now calm down and understand that others have a valid perspective here, one based on experience and an understanding of the context of how various journals fit in the context of scientific publishing and how we deploy the scientific literature in Wikipedia in our effort to provide the public with high quality content. Our goal is high quality content and that depends on editors doing their best to bring high quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Uses in Islam

Albicelestes added this content with references: A Prophetic Medicine as suggested 1400 years prior by the Prophet Muhammad. he said - "Utilize the Black Seed for without a doubt, it is a cure for all sicknesses aside from death." Saheeh al-Bukharee 7:591.'

I have removed this edit for discussion here, as the references for health effects are nonsense spam and there is no reliable historical source. --Zefr (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• Without remembering this thread, I added here one of these same shaky references borrowed from prophetic medicine after merging Nigella sativa in Islam into prophetic medicine. This addition was rightfully reverted (thanks Jytdog). I'd just like to invite interested editors to also see the prophetic medicine article and improve it (other than the primary Hadith source, all of its references are probably also unreliable). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I noted your revision at the Islam article. The historical use connected to ancient Islam may be true, but the article content is not science- or evidence-based, so is likely misleading information to users of that article and is certainly not "medicine". The article does have a multiple-issues warning banner, but that may not be enough. Perhaps it should be merged here where a small section could discuss the use of the seeds in old Islamic practices. --Zefr (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent Research Material on Nigella Sativa

- May 2019

Can someone look into them and see if the references can be quoted to this wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.127.46.179 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done No, these are both suspect journals. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Research section update?

The newest citation listed in the drugs.com footnote referenced in this article is from 2006. Much more clinical research has been done since, while the only study cited in the other footnote to this article (the hypertension study by Sahebkar, et al.) is from 2016--five years ago. I count 22 Systematic Reviews in PubMed since that 2016 hypertension study alone, and there have been 66 clinical trials since 2007. I'm not qualified to evaluate the published trials and systematic reviews that have happened since this Research section was last updated, but perhaps someone can look into it. ThreeRocks (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with reviews on research pertaining to possible health effects of N. sativa, listed here, is that they are usually not published in rigorous medical journals, but rather dubious herbalism publications or those considered as predatory listed on WP:CITEWATCH. One can also check to see if a journal is Medline-listed or if it has an acceptable impact factor among medical journals, shown here. If a journal is not Medline-indexed and/or has a medical impact factor less than 2, it is generally disqualified from use for medical content on Wikipedia. Existing for many years (likely why the Drugs.com source has not been updated), the general quality of clinical research on N. sativa has been poor, commonly with design or conduct weaknesses, and so is published in low-quality, non-clinical journals. Zefr (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Kalanji -> Kalonji

I’m a bit appalled by the endurance of the wrong spelling "kalanji" in this article, merely based on one (1) website that has failed to remove the page with the wrong title and instead just added a new page on "kalonji".

Anyway, it’s corrected now. --Geke (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Synonyms

User:Zefr: you reverted my addition of several synonyms. I understand why you invoke WP:NOTEVERYTHING , but I think in this case there is a good reason. The thing is, with this seed (culinarily at least), is that it's simply not well known in cooking in much of the English-speaking world, and as far as I can tell there is no single commonly used term for it. All of the terms for it are non-majority terms, to a point that is fairly confusing. I think it's actually helpful in this case to have a clearinghouse of all the terms for it one might possibly come across. I don't think the terms that you kept are necessarily more common than the ones I tried to add.--Ericjs (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a WP:RS source that confirms these names have significance in English culinary practices? Whatever the outcome, so many names - common and minor - are not good for the lede sentence. The names used are probably the most common ones per the sources. Zefr (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose "black onion seeds" is a widely used synonym, they're sold under that name in the UK, see here. Markussep ^Talk 06:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Zefr, do spice vendor's listing count? Besides Markussep's link I could site charnuska, which also mentions black caraway and black onion synonyns.--Ericjs (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS does not include promotional websites selling products or material unreviewed by a secondary source, WP:SECONDARY. Zefr (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as the idea that "the names used are probably the most common ones per the sources" the first of the current sources actually lists several of the synonyms that I tried to add, and more. I don't think "most common" is readily determinable, and may not even be meaningful in this case, this is my main point. --Ericjs (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The drugs.com source already used lists: "Baraka, Black caraway, Black cumin, Black seed, Charnushka, Fennel flower plant, Fitch, Kalajira, Kalonji, Krishnajirika, Love in the mist, Shonaiz, The blessed seed. i.e. if 'Kalonji' is a "common name", all those others are equally common (just in alphabetical order). But I guess the English ones may be most common in the English-speaking world. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think what makes the situation unusual, is that it simply isn't typical part of culinary practice in English-speaking countries. An English speaker is most likely to come across it in a recipe from some other tradition, in which case the term used may be the one from that tradition (like Kalonji, or Charnuska) or whatever English terms the author adapting it has come across, which varies so widely. --Ericjs (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I do think, though, that we need to make a distinction between the names for the plant that gardeners may use, and terms for the seed as a spice, from culinary usage. I was focused on names for the seed as spice, and the edit I made did not make that distinction and was probably inappropriate for the lead paragraph. --Ericjs (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not sure all of the terms listed in the drugs.com link are correct. A brief searh on "Love in the mist" suggests this is used for Nigella damascena not for Nigella sativa.--Ericjs (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The existing reference #2, https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=25337, lists the following Emglish common names: black-caraway, black-cumin, fennel-flower, nigella, nutmeg-flower, Roman-coriander. Each of these has a reference there. The perspective of this page is botanical, not culinary. --Ericjs (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Livestock research

Livestock research: I just added this new subheading with a Turkish 2008/uploaded to Science Direct in 2019 study on safety and benefits of N. sativa for laying hens. Could someone assist me with the proper sourcing of this study, available on Google This small 2008 Turkish study "Black Cumin (Nigella sativa L.) Supplementation into the Diet of the Laying Hen Positively Influences Egg Yield Parameters, Shell Quality, and Decreases Egg Cholesterol" most likely was originally published in Turkish, so I may not understand their placement of length of study data. I certainly could not find it! But this study does confirm my safety question for adding it to my chicken pasture. I am sure plenty of others will have the same question, considering N. sativa's placement in the generally more toxic Ranunculus family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisevil (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)