This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Plants High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Bangladesh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. International development This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I would think a good percentage of the visitors to this page come because of Zija International, a company that specializes in Moringa drinks. I don't work for them and have no relation to them, but I put a link to them the other day on this page, which was deleted. I didn't put a talk page up first since I figured no one would take down such a link, since, at least in my history, and again I've never met anyone having anything to do with that company, Moringa equals Zija Intl. Are they not the largest, or at least most prolific, distributor of moringa in the US? --Mrcolj 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, I took down your link. But if you want to put it back up, go ahead. I have grown a lot of Moringa trees without ever hearing of this company, but thats just me.

As a side not I am cuirass as to how they are able to remove the oxalate content of the Moringa, as it’s over 1%. I suffer from kidney stones, so I could not drink Zija myself simply due to the extreamly high level of oxalate. Brimba 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge of Drumstick (fruit) into Moringa oleifera. Badagnani 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge of Drumstick (fruit) into Moringa oleifera. Although it is certainly the same species, the subject is fundamentally different: one is a tree, the other a food. The tree entails all its taxonomy, geography, and many varied uses (water treatment, oil, nutrition) and the Drumstick is a traditional Indian vegetable. If merged, then I would wager that eventually, drumstick (fruit) would again be split off as a daughter article. Drumsticks are good enough to deserve their own article (esp. on the English language Wiki). Simple links between the two is best. Istvan 14:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge of Drumstick (fruit) into Moringa oleifera. There are sections on the usages of plants as food in the articles for many multipurpose plants. There is a lot of overlap between the two sections, and I don't see anything gained by having the content split out in this case. Waitak 08:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just the use of the seed in water purification that caught my attention. On that basis I have added it to Category:Appropriate technology and also draw your attention to this WikiProject. Cheers, Singkong2005 13:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-02/22/how-a-seed-helps-purify-water.aspx Angelo (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey there....i guess you need to give more details on transportation of nutrition to seeds.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.211.130.191 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have been doing research on this plant for a project I am conducting. Of all the research I have seen no where has it been stated that spirochin is a toxic alkaloid, nor it is said to be in Moringa Oleifera. It has been announced to have been found in Moringa Pterygosperma, but studies show that it is not harmful. In fact, results show it could have positive pharmaceutical aspects. Could someone find the source of the previously stated data or update this page to the most recent findings? Sothisislife101 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that statement was removed (along with some other content) in a funky way by 77.30.22.133 (January 27th), it appears to be an accidental edit to me. I just restored it. Here is reference for spirochin being harmful: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1924986/ "Even though the toxic root bark is removed, the flesh has been found to contain the alkaloid spirochin, which can cause nerve paralysis." -- though according to http://www.appropedia.org/Moringa#cite_note-0 "The presence of this compound is not worrying because large amounts are required to elicit deleterious effects, and spirochin even displays antibacterial properties when consumed in smaller amounts.". Another reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=C8xJE2NfQpIC&pg=PA217&dq=spirochin+moringa says "Spirochin, an alkaloid in the root, accelerates and amplifies the heartbeat at 35 mg/kg, but has the opposite effect at doses of 250 mg/kg or larger. It paralyzes the vagus nerve and other parts of the central nervous system and has an analgesic effect." --Mrienstra (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources you cited, appropedia.org doesn't satisfy the guidelines laid down in WP:SECONDARY for reliable secondary sources we can cite to support things we say in our article. But Poisonous Plants and Animals of Florida and the Caribbean, David W. Nellis is probably such a source, subject to verification. I'd believe what Nellis says about the toxicity of Spirochin before I accepted what appropedia.org had to say on the topic. However, we need more sources on this topic before using any of them to support statements about the toxicity of moringa or anything found in it, especially as moringa's already being promoted as a cure for various diseases in various "organic farming" websites. Please review WP:MEDRS before proceeding with this part of the article. Thanks for the work, it is appreciated! loupgarous (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The leaves are not to be eaten during the monsoon season, this is not mentioned anywhere in your article. But every one in Southern India will advise that the Drumstick leaves should not be eaten during the rains, but drumstick is safe to be eaten. Is their any credible research on this aspect?? Pls help. Also check this link, http://www.herpes-coldsores.com/messageforum/showthread.php?35802-A-platter-specially-for-Karkitakam

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.48.102 (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a nutritional profile of the plant and/or the plant parts please be added. Until this information is placed and verified, this article is likely to generate disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.161.143 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional supplements

Can we mention that moringa is now a majority element in nutritional supplements?^[1] MaynardClark (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's one example product from one manufacturer. We would need a good secondary reference to state that it's a "majority element" in the supplement industry (doubtful that exists). I'm not even aware that there is significant agricultural production that would supply commercial demand. Reference for that? It remains a fringe topic and ingredient, in my opinion. --Zefr (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but someone else should do the work. That's why I asked. The article states that cultivation has recently begun in the USA (in Hawaii), so the topic is 'current' or a recent development - not something I see as fringe at this time, if it's only a 'mention'. If that were a topic for developing as a later article, we would want to see research on the mechanisms of how moringa acts inside the human body (if it also acts as a water filter externally). MaynardClark (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Some minutes ago i corrected a mistake in a reference. And this mistake back again where it was... User Zfer please take a good look at my correction on the reference. It points to the original source of the article - http://www.tfljournal.org/article.php?story=20051201124931586&query=%2BA%2BReview%2Bof%2Bthe%2BMedical%2BEvidence%2Bfor%2BIts%2BNutritional%252C%2BTherapeutic%252C%2Band%2BProphylactic%2BProperties.

The source of reference at the moment is going to a very poor website that had nothing to do with the research and article

The reference in cause ^ a b c Jed W. Fahey (2005). "Moringa oleifera: A Review of the Medical Evidence for Its Nutritional, Therapeutic, and Prophylactic Properties. Part 1.". Trees for Life Journal.

This is an article and research from Trees for life jornal and is where the link i post, point at. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.81.115 (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These references were appended to the article, but were not being used to support any of the article content. I'm moving them here in case anyone wants to use them to improve the article. Deli nk (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Goel, Khushbu, S. Das, 2011. Comparative studies on antioxidant and free radical scavenging activities of Moringa oleifera (Lam.) and Cassia fistula. Inventi Rapid: Ethanopharmcog., 3.
• Goel, Khushbu, 2010, Screening for free Radical Scavenging Activity from Ethanolic and Aqueous extract of Multi-purpose Tree Moringa oleifera (Horse Radish Tree, pods), and Evaluation of Analgesic, Antimicrobial Activities, M.Sc. Dissertation submitted to the Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Banasthali Vidyapith, National University for Women’s Education, Rajasthan.

Moving sections from the Article to here for editing and sourcing --Zefr (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From General Nutrition

Moringa leaves and pods may be helpful in increasing breast milk.^{[citation needed]} One tablespoon of leaf powder provides 14% protein, 40% calcium, 23% iron and vitamin A needs of a child aged one to three.^{[citation needed]} Six tablespoons of leaf powder may provide nearly all of a woman's daily iron and calcium needs during pregnancy and breastfeeding.^{[citation needed]}

The flowers are also cooked and relished as a delicacy in West Bengal and Bangladesh, especially during early spring.^{[citation needed]} There it is called shojne ful and is usually cooked with green peas and potato.

From Malnutrition

Leaves can be eaten fresh, cooked, or stored as dried powder, however Moringa powder is easily oxidized and must be sealed in oxygen- and light-free packaging, or its nutritional value will be diminished after about 90 days.^{[citation needed]}

In many cultures throughout the tropics, differentiation between food and potential therapeutic uses of plants (e.g. bark, fruit, leaves, nuts, seeds, tubers, roots, and flowers), is difficult because plant uses span both categories, according to traditional practices.^{[citation needed]}

In traditional Indian medicine (Ayurveda and Siddha), children and adults might drink a cup of "decoction" (called kasayam), normally after an oil bath, made of ginger, garlic, a piece of Moringa tree bark and mavelingam tree bark, and the root nodules of the kolinji plant, a leguminous plant with nitrogen nodules in the root.^{[citation needed]}

I commented out the table comparing Moringa leaf to common foods, because the table neither states the amounts involved, nor the state (dried vs fresh) of the entries. And as such, the table is at best useless, and at worst is highly misleading! The author of the table apparently took advantage of these omissions to bias the results toward Moringa, by comparing dry Moringa leaf to fresh (moisture-laden) foods! Now, I can't verify my conjecture, because I was unable to find an online copy of either of the referenced documents. But the USDA data and other readily available vetted online research data diverges significantly from the table's data.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a BIG fan of Moringa; and am growing it myself. So I hope this table's problem with omissions, biases, and unavailable reference materials can be rectified, so this Wikipedia entry can show an honest and fair comparison of Moringa to more common foods. Moringa is a truly remarkable plant: It doesn't need anybody to cheat to prove its worth.

Markj99 (talk)

Moving the pending table here for discussion and editing. Comparisons expressed as % differences are invalid due to significant differences in water content. No reference is needed for the obvious fact that carrots, milk and yogurt contain more water (and therefore their respective nutrient contents per food weight are diluted) than raw moringa leaves (79% water, USDA table).

Nutrients	Common food		Moringa Leaves	Comparison
Vitamin A	Carrots	1.8 mg	6.8 mg	375%
Calcium	Milk	120 mg	440 mg	365%
Potassium	Bananas	88 mg	259 mg	295%
Protein	Yogurt	3.1 g	6.7 g	215%
Vitamin C	Oranges	30 mg	220 mg	730%

Check nutrient contents, including water percentages, using[1]. --Zefr (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that this is the (reliable!) source of the very often repeated statement coined by Trees for Life that moringa has seven times the vitamin C or oranges, four times the vitamin A of carrots and so on. The analysis has 96,900 ghits in Web pages, for example. I've bumped into rephrasings of the same quote in something like half of the articles that I've read on moringa in researching this article.

For the article to help people who have heard this phrase to understand what's underneath it is both encyclopedic and noteworthy. I can easily imagine a reader coming to this article because they'd heard or read the phrase, and wanted to learn what's behind it. (And in so doing, they would learn that it's actually not quite four, which is a useful contribution!) I think that the best way to handle this is to just give the quote and its source, then show the table without the comparison table. If you can find a reliable source that explains how water percentages affect the concentration of nutrients in raw foods, and how to take that into account, that's fine, but you can't just invalid the comparison because you have a personal objection to it. It's a comparison that has a major impact on what people believe about moringa, and that belongs in an article about it. Waitak (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tree of Life statement is WP:PEA -- unsubstantiated in the scientific literature and foolhardy without having comparative samples each prepared to the same dry weight, analyzed with a reliable assay, then published under peer-review.--Zefr (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock words, as explained in the page you refer to, are "unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance" that are "often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". In this case, the table presents a provable fact, take from reliable sources, showing that moringa has larger quantities of certain nutrients, when compared to other similar produce that are known to be high in these same nutrients. That's fact. You can argue (although I've never read anything in any source that does so) that comparisons by weight are only valid when comparing dry produce. If you can find someplace that says that, by all means cite it and make the case. In the meantime, the Trees for Life statement summarizes facts, from reliable sources. Fresh moringa does contain roughly four times the vitamin A of fresh carrots. It does contain about seven times the vitamin C of oranges. Those are facts. The sources say so. It's not unprovable. It's not a statement about moringa's importance. WP:PEA doesn't apply. Waitak (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the comparison has to be including water or not, the article shows extremely different nutritional values for the moringa leaves (6.8 mg of Vitamin A when compared to carrots, but the other table talks of 0.348 mg ). It was claimed that both the values were from USDA, which, beside being a clear non-sense, is not true (USDA values are the ones in the table to the right, not the ones used for comparison). The part on the nutritional data has to be revised, because right now it is quite inconsistent, showing some data and using other ones to compare to other food. Best would be to check the validity of the two sets, and if both are judged valid, then report it and use both to compare to other foods. On the matter of validity, the values used for comparison to other foods come from a book which, in turn, uses data from a Indian research center (CSIR). However, on their website I was unable retrieve these data. Unless there is a way to see and check (the method of) the original source, these numbers would be considered unusable for a Wiki page (or it should be clarified that "one report suggests that"). I didn't make any research on USDA datas, but nothing says they should be preferred, but as it looks now, it seems Wikipedia wants to promote Moringa. 130.225.198.198 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above table contradicts data from wikipedia itself by huge amount, especially Vitamin A is concerned. There is something wrong with the table. Data from Tree for life totally contradicts with wikipedia data as well. I feel this table should removed/edited due to fear of misinformation. -Rox Tarr

Since soy and moringa are both used in protein supplements and are touted for calcium supplementation, I think that table should include data on soy. Also, how about a table comparing moringa supplements? MaynardClark (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Together with two colleagues I would like to add some agricultural information to the site. We did only minor changes to the existing parts. Please check out a draft of the page on my user page "user:Anbruu/sandbox" and feel free to leave some comments. —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Try adding common names of the tree in countries where it is used most commonly for food. For example: Hindi sahjan, Punjabi surajana, Marathi shevga, Malayalam muringa, Sinhalese murunga, Filipino malunggay, Thai phak i hum, etc. Instead of say, French or German, which are mostly just direct translations of the English names.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Thank you. We will change this. Anbruu (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The agricultural information looks generally good. A minor suggestion is to follow convention in subsection headings for use of capital letters and scientific terms, e.g., pH. In the Etymology section, we do not need its name in different languages, as defined by the English Wikipedia, WP:EN; also, displaying names used in various languages is not etymology, so let's stick with what the section title defines. Other pages have seen endless additions of names in different languages, serving no purpose to English users. I also suggest limiting the crop production comparisons, as this also invites comparison and competition among provinces/states in different countries, with little useful information to the general user. --Zefr (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an English user, I would just like to point out, Zefr, that I do use those additions of names in different languages, in order to help me search the foreign-language internet. To use one example, it is annoying to have to individually go to the Bengali Wikipedia page and copy the page name there just to look up a Bengali recipe, especially if Bengali Wikipedia lacks a page on the topic. I may not speak a word of Bengali, but Google does; unfortunately, Google can't help the way English, for example, doesn't distinguish between trees and fruits. If others are annoyed by use of space for non-English names, perhaps they could be a collapsible sidebar, below scientific classification.69.5.152.24 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right bout the etymology section. Because there are hundreds of names in dozens of languages and local dialects, it's not useful to add them all in Wikipedia. We therefore added an external link to a page where they can be found. The link is now part of the introduction because the names don't really belong into the etymology section, as pointed out. Anbruu (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the problematic of yield competition we changed it so that only one country per yield (leaves, fruits, oil) appears in the text.PhilBu (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Especially in plants which are not native to English-speaking regions. The majority of readers would search for it using the native names, not the less familiar English names which are mostly only used by botanists anyway as the plants themselves are not known to most English-speakers. Not saying you add all of them, but a few of the most prominent languages in countries where they are most commonly consumed are good enough.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTDICTIONARY. An English encyclopedia is not obligated to publish terms in non-English languages. --Zefr (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains both imperial and metric measurements, and needs to be one of the other. I am not familiar enough with the plant itself to confidently amend these.

Rather than stating months of the year during which it can be harvested, the seasons should be given, as it's going to vary from one location to another.Maxwellsubmarine (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph below was in the Article but is non-essential information for the English Wikipedia. The reference previously provided to support use of these names is WP:SPAM; a reference supporting potential health benefits needs to meet WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moringa oleifera is also known as: "Malunggáy", "Kamunggay" and "Marungay" in Philippines, "Sajina" in India, "Shojne" in Bengal, "Munagakaya" in Telugu, "Shenano" in Rajasthani, "Shevaga" in Marathi, "Nuggekai" in Kannada, "La mu" in Chinese.

Seems like an unduly long list. The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center lists these other names: "Horseradish tree, Drumstick tree, Benzolive tree, Ben oil tree, La mu"; this seems more the sort of thing we should align with. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry.) Lists of unduly can be solved with segragating. And requires some members to do that works.

For example as own wikipedia article, if not sub-topicly (in the article) wanted. F. e.: Moringa oleifera, names in other countries or Moringa oleifera, names in the world.

With english as native language in other countries it could be very helpful to have it reliable from wikipedia in other languages. Whether for research or/and shopping and knowledge and talks.

--Visionhelp (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a small paragraph to reference a new study that highlights some anti-cancer properties of the moringa extract (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991666/) although my change got reverted by BattyBot due to "Rv - sourced to primary, not WP:MEDRS".

I realise that preference should be given to peer reviewed, non-primary sourced documents, but does it really mean the study does not even deserve to be mentioned in the article? I suppose I can reword it, if the original wording looked like it was giving too much weight and mention that it's just one in-vitro study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartial arts (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be mentioned. WP:MEDRS is quite clear about this: "Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the desire to not make claims that aren't backed up, changing "Medical research and potential adverse effects" to "Preliminary research and potential adverse effects" makes it hard for the reader to know what the topic of the section discusses. There are a number of kinds of research mentioned in the article. Rather than just reverting, I'll request that you give it another try. There's nothing POV about trying to tell the reader what sort of research is discussed in the section. The section is about medical research. Sometimes research shows that an effect is validated, other times that it's not. There are instances of both in the section. Simply stating that it's about medical research makes no claims whatsoever about the results of the research. Would you give it another go, please? Waitak (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you. Waitak (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Moringa contained a lot of content that is specific to Moringa oleifera. Since it would be more appropriate here than there, I have removed it from that article. But since it is redundant to some of the content here, I don't want to paste in directly in. So I am placing a copy of it below so that any editor can look at it and merge any content they find useful into this article. Deli nk (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Although it's not discussed in the text (yet), this book mentions the flowers as used in traditional medicine. Waitak (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. When that material is added to the article then we can add th3e category. Until then it is an unsourced claim and I am removing it as such. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the basis of that revert (which is now sourced) would be...? I misread the history, my apologies. Waitak (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this category yet again. Use of flowers as a medicine does not make them a vegetable. We can't consider opium poppies, belladonna or cannabis to be vegetables despite the fact that the flowers are used medicinally. For inclusion in this category we need a reference that the flower clusters are harvested and cooked as food. I wouldn't doubt that this is true, but we need evidence for the claim. A large part of my reason for challenging this is that some editors have added multiple other articles to this category when quite clearly the inflorescence is not used as a vegetable. In some cases individual flowers are used but not the inflorescence and in other cases, such as the inclusion of bananas, there is no evidence the flowers are ever used. At this stage i am not prepared to accept the inclusion in this category of a vegetable I am not that familiar with. I have tagged the whole cuisine section as needing references, since almost nothing in there is referenced. Mark Marathon (talk)

Here's what I've found so far. Note that I'm not suggesting that these are references worthy of WP (which is why I didn't put them into the article).

• Greene Dean's Itemized Plant Profile says "Leave can be eaten raw or cooked like spinach, young seed pods can be cooked many ways, seeds are edible, cooked flowers taste like mushrooms, and the roots can be made into an occasional condiment."
• Eat the Weeds says "The flowers are eaten cooked, usually boiled, and taste like mushrooms."
• Permaculture UK says "Its cooked flowers mimic mushrooms in taste, while its leaves hint at spinach and lettuce."

Since this is something that you obviously care about, can I suggest that you reinstate the category, and phrase and source the statement in the article in whatever way you're most comfortable with? There's no doubt, given the above, that the flowers are edible, and your interest in the topic should help you state that in a WP-worthy manner. Waitak (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered user (and several editors previously) attempted to add content supported by spam, unreliable sources, such as Moringa Trees Miracle Trees, Church World Service and work by Lowell Fuglie who appears to not have a single published paper in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Moringa Trees and Miracle Trees are commercial, spam sites with highly exaggerated claims about the "miracle" properties of moringa. Within those sites, however, is useful information about the moringa tree itself, cultivation and variety of uses. The article's current nutritional statements and data about moringa nutrient content are from the US Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database, the internationally-respected source for nearly all plant food nutrition discussed on Wikipedia.

I reject these claims and sources as WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM and not WP:RS. None of the claims of miracle nutritional properties can be supported by WP:V. It is time to permanently dismiss the scam. For background, "take a dose of skepticism" about claims of miracles. --Zefr (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but i take issue in calling Moringa Trees, Miracle Trees pages, spam and unreliable sources. These 2 pages are pioneers in promoting moringa around the world and much of information accross the web, is originated from those pages.This ref page WebMD is spam, "Moringa Side Effects and Safety". WebMD. Retrieved 2014-08-01. But no problem to make a reference to it in moringa oleifera page. You can use studies like http://miracletrees.org/moringa-doc/moringa-oleifera-side-effects-safety.pdf to highlight the safety of moringa, in place of WebMD crap article. Is WebMD page that talks about moringa as if is a miracle, without backing up its claims. miracletrees.org and moringatrees.org backup their findings with research and studies. As for Fuglie and World church service book on moringa, check it here https://books.google.de/books/about/The_Miracle_Tree.html?id=tjBKHAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y That book is not about miracles, is about hard scientific facts, lots of studies and research. From where many of the information about moringa on the net comes from. Because it was one of the pioneers in researching moringa and showing it to the world... not miracles but FACTS. That the tree is named Miracle tree, does not mean me or Fuglie believe in miracles or are selling bull to the public. The Miracle tree name relates to the fact that the tree is simply an amazing plant... you should know that by now??

About the names of moringa around the world. Something that is referenced as coming from "Names for Moringa". Trees for Life. 2015. Retrieved 25 April 2015, actually, originally comes from that book(the miracle tree from Fuglie) and Fuglie webpage http://moringatrees.org/tmtnames.html. You call miracletrees.org and moringatrees.org spam and unreliable sources but you reference pages and work in other pages that COPY THE WORK of fuglie and moringatrees.org. Yes, if the work of Fuglie is unreliable, why use it as reference coming from other webpage? Does the original work not count? Is it more valid when it is a copy??? Highly exaggerated claims about the "miracle" properties of moringa??? where do you see those claims, point one to me please. If there are claims in those pages that are exagerated and not backedup by science or facts, i will ask to take it down. Also you mention that those pages are commercial, but you raise no issue that WebMD page is commercial, selling all types of stuff and full with commercials. so that is fine with you...

Church World Service and work by Lowell not reliable sources??? Do you know the work of Lowell Fuglie? He is the man that made moringa what moringa is today. He brought moringa to the spot light. He was a pioneer researcher... not based on MIRACLES, as you try to paint, but on REAL FACTS. Check his book about moringa if you can, if not then read on the internet about him

Here a little Fuglie summary- Lowell Fuglie was respected by many as a moringa innovator, lecturer, scientist, pioneer, and true humanitarian. He worked tirelessly spreading the word about the effectiveness of Moringa Oleifera in fighting malnutrition in the developing world. His many publications have been read and distributed around the globe. Lowell was known as the Johnny Appleseed of the Moringa tree. For many years he spread the news, and the seeds, of the remarkable Moringa tree. Russ Bianchi, offered these kind words: "No one on this planet gave more to preserve and better his fellow souls health outcomes, than Lowell’s tireless efforts on the use of Moringa Oleifera. IF there is any doubts that moringatrees.org is a pioneer and moringa names original work comes from Fuglie and moringatrees.org, please check the net archive from year 2000 https://web.archive.org/web/20010128001400/http://www.moringatrees.org/TMTnames.html

More evidence that moringa names original work comes from Fuglie. The same page that is referenced in wikipedia as the source: "Numerous other common names for moringa exist in different languages worldwide". https://www.treesforlife.org/our-work/our-initiatives/moringa/names-of-moringa

names Fuglie work as the original work http://www.treesforlife.org/our-work/our-initiatives/moringa/names-of-moringa This list adapted from "The Miracle Tree/Moringa oleifera: Natural Nutrition for the Tropics" by Lowell Fuglie.

The reference that i was adding to the page and you took down. Now saying that is not reliable and commercial, had no commercials at all or is selling anything. this was the page http://moringatrees.org/tmtnutrition.html. Where do you see any commercial, ad or anything selling in that page? I was setting up that reference there BECAUSE what is there right now is the following. L.J. Fuglie (1999). Moringa: Natural Nutrition for the Tropics. Dakar: Church World Service.[page needed] It say that there is a page needed. Which page do you think fits the description other then Fuglie page? Exactly the page that the reference mention that is needed to be added.

FINELY You accuse our pages of being a scam. Or that we participate in some sort of scam. Do you have any evidence of this? Please show me where do we participate in a scam? Or point out where am i or Fuglie selling miracles? We dont believe in miracle crap or a man in the sky. We believe in HARD FACTS, SCIENCE. The page http://moringatrees.org/tmtnutrition.html is FACTS. RDA for moringa recommended by WHO/FAO The nutrients values in that page ARE results from labs and not miracles. That page is promoting nothing beside giving information about moringa and it give a more detailed fact checked information then many of the pages that you use as reference.

Miracletrees.org and moringatrees.org, distributed, donated many seeds trough out the world, long before you probably knew moringa existed. Not only fighting malnutrition but also mitigating effects of climate change. not because we believe in miracles but because moringa can improve health of people and fight malnutrition in a effective way. Because every seed that was planted resulted in a tree that takes Co2 in and is good for the environment. Thats not a scam, is real work to fight climate change and its concequences.

I am absulutely disappointed that you calling my work and the work oo Fuglie, a scam, that we selling crap miracles or that we are not reliable sources, while at the same time you use references that are based on our work by point to other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:983f:fdf8:95e2:bfe9:d6b2:b02a (talk)

The Miracle Trees and Moringa Trees sites are commercial platforms selling products, a practice not used for the encyclopedia per WP:ADMASK and WP:PROMO. That you have admitted responsibility for one or both sites puts you into WP:COI which reflects the content you want to add is not neutral, WP:NPOV.

Fyi, this part of the Moringa Trees site provides misleading, exaggerated, unconfirmed information about anti-disease activity, which does not comply with WP:MEDRS for reliability; similar statement for the Miracle Trees site. Other exaggerated false claims are the nutrient comparisons with other foods in the upper left panel entitled "The amazing Moringa oleifera tree": none of these statements is fact; check the USDA nutrient tables used in the article.

The WebMD source is not ideal as it provides carelessly written content suggesting confirmed anti-disease activity (most of the content under Uses are traditional medicine), so I deleted it. Deriving from research and content by board-certified physicians, the Memorial Sloan Kettering source (ref. 37) provides more neutral content so can be substituted for the WebMD source. A more recent review was published in 2015, worthy to be cited in the article, so I added it today. --Zefr (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miracletrees.org does sell products, thats right. But miracletrees.org is not exclusively a commercial platform as you mention. There is a shop but also lots of information about moringa. Moringatrees.org has no shop and only one page indicating where people can buy products, all the other pages are clean of commercials or any commerce. Yes i partially take care of one of the sites, I never did claim otherwise.

[http://moringatrees.org/miracletree.html does not provide misleading, exagerated, unconfirmed information about anti-disease activity. That page mentions that this are traditional practices used by local populations to treat some health problems. THAT IS REAL, thats what people do with moringa in this areas of the world. THATS NOT EXAGERATED or unconfirmed, IS REAL STUFF that happens around the world. Not everybody has a farmacy or the money for medicines like you and me do. Some peopel use herbs and other stuff for their cures. Thats TRUE, we not making that up, Its whats going on, its a report on the field. That you read it as misleading, thats you taking it that way. You also say that my work is spam, scam and unreliable, while i donated 1000s of seeds around the world. Is what you like to see right?

QUOTE http://moringatrees.org/miracletree.html MORINGA: A MEDICAL PHARMACOPOEIA Moringa oleifera is already highly esteemed by people in the tropics and sub-tropics for the many ways it is used medicinally by local herbalists. Some of these traditional uses reflect the nutritional content of the various tree parts. The following are but some of the ways the tree is used in Asia, Africa and the Americas. In recent years, laboratory investigation has confirmed the efficacy of some of these applications. Other exaggerated false claims are the nutrient comparisons with other foods in the upper left panel entitled "The amazing Moringa oleifera tree": none of these statements is fact; check the USDA nutrient tables used in the article. I checked USDA nutrient tables as you asked me. The USDA tables are about RAW leaves and pots. The information nutrient comparisons with other foods in the upper left panel is LEAF POWDER. That gives different results, higher values in lab because ----- 2 or 3 kg of leaves, makes a couple hundred grams in powder, meaning the nutrition is concentrated. The water in the leaves is not there anymore. If you look carefuly, you will notice that the value of vitamin C in powder is much lower in the powder. BECAUSE vitamin C is almost killed in the drying process. BUT that is not the case for other nutrients. The WebMD source is full of commercials. How come that is not considered a commercial page??? Again, the page i was trying to add http://moringatrees.org/tmtnutrition.html HAS no commercial stuff in it at all, as you claimed it had. I was adding that page because, the reference i replaced with, L.J. Fuglie (1999). Moringa: Natural Nutrition for the Tropics. Dakar: Church World Service.[page needed] MENTION THE FACT, that a page was needed. If article calls for a page there from Fuglie, and then i add the page from fuglie, you take it down and call it spam, a scam and not reliable source, what to do if not had the page from fuglie??? You did not address the situation of a reference made about the names of moringa. That is a work from Fuglie but is referenced as coming from other page. WHY is the work from fuglie spam, scam, not reliable and practicaly a copy of his work is referenced. WHy a copy is a reliable source and fuglie work a scam? archive from year 2000 https://web.archive.org/web/20010128001400/http://www.moringatrees.org/TMTnames.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:983f:fdf8:95e2:bfe9:d6b2:b02a (talk)

* Bottom line here is that WP does not link to commercial sites selling anything, and especially not when the subject is scientific/medical and the source does not conform to WP:MEDRS. Please stop flogging a dead horse, your sites will not be included here. Ratel (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you reference the work from fuglie coming from other page? but not the original work? COOL Keep the good work boys... thanks for calling fuglie and my work spam, scam and not reliable and keep reference sources that base their work on fuglie research. im just stonned with your way to handle this. JUST TO END THIS IDIOTIC DISCUSSION. Nutritional content of 100 g of fresh M. oleifera leaves (about 5 cups) is shown in the table (right; USDA data), while other studies of nutrient values are available.[22][23] REF 23 >>> L.J. Fuglie (1999). Moringa: Natural Nutrition for the Tropics. Dakar: Church World Service.[page needed] moringatrees.org/tmtnutrition.html is Fuglie page with the nutrient values the article mention. BUT GO AHEAD AND FIND OTHER PAGE COPY, WHO THE FUCK CARES RIGHT? :) have fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:983f:fdf8:95e2:bfe9:d6b2:b02a (talk)

22 Moringatrees.org, Miracletrees.org and Lowell Fuglie are not reliable sources

You calling http://moringatrees.org/ , http://miracletrees.org/ and Lowell Fuglie unreliable sources, still you use references from those pages and from Fuglie. there is something not correct here. You call for reference page missing from Fuglie, yes you label him as unreliable There is work from Fuglie referenced in teh article as coming from other sources

THIS IS NOT CORRECT, FAIR OR HONEST

Or you accept the work of fuglie or you dont. You cant and call work unreliable and at the same time use his work but referencing it as coming from other authors.

Moringa leaf powder and moringa fresh leaves gives different results. I understand that it may be confusing, but that is the facts. You claiming that the pages moringatrees.org and miracletrees.org are sprading falsehoods, fake info, exaggerated... I showed you that nothing of it is false or exaggerated. At least you could make some excuses, but not... You keep going on with your own believe that its spam, scam. EVEN when you see the facts prove you wrong.

I wonder who is the one believing in miracles? I give you facts and you smash it as lies and miracles. Not funny!

BUT DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT( im just inventing numbers right) Check source treesforlife.org... if you want i can give you the correct link so you see with your own eyes because as you already did prove, you dont believe mine, i wonder if you believe yours. AND IF you still dont believe that source, i can take you personally to a lab so you check with your own EYES!

Fresh Leaves Gram for gram, fresh leaves contain about:

4 times the Vitamin A of Carrots 7 times the Vitamin C of Oranges 4 times the Calcium of Milk 3 times the Potassium of Bananas 25 times the Iron of Spinach 2 times the Protein of Yogurt

Dried Leaves Gram for gram, dried leaves contain about:

10 times the Vitamin A of Carrots 0,5 the Vitamin C of Oranges 17 times the Calcium of Milk 15 times the Potassium of Bananas 25 times the Iron of Spinach 9 times the Protein of Yogurt

Now i guess you will find some skeptical stuff to say again? Like for example the numbers are different from other results. And i tell you, trees are cultivated differently, in different soils and climates

PLUS, you should know that every lab used different process. SO YOU WILL NOT HAVE SAME SAME RESULTS.

AND in case the leaves would be freeze dried, the nutrition values of leaf powder would be even higher. BECAUSE freeze drying process does preserve more nutrients then any other drying process. OH! you did not know that one did you? CHECK WIKIPEDIA and stop calling miracletrees.org, the page of fuglie and fuglie himself unreliable, fake, scam, spam, exaggerated... and at the same time reference work from the man! There is a name for that. ITS HYPOCRISY!

So miracletrees.org and moringatrees.org are commercial and that is one of the reasons this guy is taking all references down to that pages, substituting with moringanews.org-

the funny thing is that moringanews, right on top announce also their commercial activities

Moringa&Co is a new fair trade company set up by the Moringanews network. It imports dry Moringa leaves and moringa leaf powder from partners in Africa and offers them to EU consumers in form of teas, seasonings and other cooking ingredients.

Order on www.moringaandco.com

HYPOCRISY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:983F:FDF8:857E:42AE:8D8A:FF7E (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:983F:FDF8:60EC:C4FA:AE85:E5D6 (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So no one's going to mention the claims of quackery surrounding this plant? No mention of the shady person who created the hype around the Moringa tree and gave it all the superlatives? No mention of his shady past? No mention that his company is the source for all the material and claims worldwide? No mention of the Noni juice scam? Of the this guy's shady MLM company and its history with the FDA as claiming it as a medicinal cure for the worst sicknesses (and to several of them together!)? No mention how they were stopped after illegally exporting it and illegally advertising it falsely as a medicine? No mention how these people sidestepped that through companies overseas growing and distributing it with the original company's help? How about the scandalous distribution in 3rd world countries and dictatorships where extremely poor people are extorted out of the little they have and get this instead of food(!)? What about all the strawman websites and videos about "the Moringa hoax" all parroting the original claims -sometimes battering the competing distributors and their methods of distribution, sometimes claiming directly that it's not quackery and other times just ignoring the question and going into glorifying claims about the Moringa and its derivatives? And there's much more. So no one is going to mention that this entry is under category:pseudo science and category alternative medicine? Will there not be any section about the controversy? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please put up a suggested edit, with sources, here, and we'll have a look. I was not aware that there is/was a hoax attached to the plant, and I have seen a few studies supporting some of the claims, e.g. PMID 27644601 PMID 25808883 an PMID 25374169 PMID 24577932 PMID 22403543 etc Ratel (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of any hoaxes either. Regarding your claims about people being extorted out of what they have, I honestly have trouble believing this. Moringa oleifera is prolific anywhere that the temperature doesn't ever get below about 5C. I've personally seen the leaves available for very little in markets all over the Philippines, for example. The seed pods are available for cheap in almost any Indian market. Again, I've seen this with my own eyes. Given all that, I'm having trouble understanding how anybody could extort anything from anyone in the developing world. The tree is highly nutritious, widely available and easy to grow for anybody who wants it. The standard method for planting them is to cut off a twig and stick it in the ground. I've personally watched them grow two meters in a single growing season. Waitak (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems a lot of speculation about medicinal benefits. Currently the article states there are none. YET in these review articles (more recent than the ones cited as of now in the wikipedia article) there are several antimicrobial and anti cancer properties stated. http://article.jddmc.org/pdf/10.11648.j.jddmc.20170304.12.pdf

and http://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2016/vol2issue8/PartH/2-7-178-878.pdf also mentioning a use is https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ptr.5325 and http://imperialjournals.com/index.php/IJIR/article/view/4911 THESE seem to be bona fide peer reviewed journals.

I have not the time to evaluate all these and do not want to spend time in an edit war. But they are secondary sources supporting medical efficacy, at least antimicrobial activity with a derived moringa product which works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the text and sources on nutrition in the leaves to this edit because it concisely states the diverse nutrient content, without going into an unsupportable description about leaves being a 'superfood' or having anti-disease properties, which must be supported by a WP:MEDRS systematic review or meta-analysis of completed, high-quality clinical trials. No such evidence exists from consuming moringa leaves. Specific comments: 1) what is the new information in this source? 2) Are the leaves a source of dietary antioxidants? If 100 grams of moringa leaves are consumed (practical amount?), the leaves supply 2/3 of the Daily Value of vitamin C and half the DV of vitamin A, making this leaf amount an excellent source of these dietary antioxidants, but that was already stated in the original version. 3) The description of spinach nutrient content is similar, but without implicating any 'superfood' or anti-disease properties. 4) The journal Food Science and Human Wellness does not appear to be Medline-indexed and does not have an impact factor, making it non-usable as a source. 5) The journal Antioxidants is a predatory journal, as reported on WP:SOURCEWATCH, so is not used on Wikipedia. 6) The statement "... evidence-based antioxidant, antibiotic, anti-fungal, anti-hyperglycemic and cancer-suppressant effects" is not supportable by any WP:MEDRS source and is irresponsible to infer these medical properties in the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion here. The reason for the latest revert is because I've added sufficiently sourced and relevant content, which you've undone without much actionable feedback before starting this discussion. Since you have an objection to the content I've added, and therefore are the contender, I find it only fair that the article reflect my revisions while we discuss this here. I want to clarify my stance. I don't disagree with the ambiguity and dubiety surrounding the notion of superfoods, but the reality is that this is an ever-increasing, verifiable phenomenon (Wikipedia has an article on superfoods). Since there is ample reference of Moringa as a superfood, it seems fit to discuss this entitlement in the context of the literature in an encyclopedic entry. Hence the choice of words in "purported", "unofficial" and "attributable to" -- no definitive or diagnostic claims are being made here.

1) That source supports its importance as a medicinal plant, owing to its phytochemical compounds and antioxidant potential. E.g. "Investigation into its medicinal properties has provided evidence of antibiotic properties ..." You argue that the source is not WP:MEDRS, but that does not discredit the fact that there are studies by experts that show these properties. Again, these are not definitive medical claims or facts, but are the findings on which the superfood status is based.

2) I'm not sure what you're asking here, since you just admitted that they contain a range of antioxidant vitamins in high concentrations. Indeed, it's already been stated, but what stands out about Moringa's mineral and vitamin profile that it is as well-rounded as it is concentrated, and this is the basis for its status as a superfood. Again, the legitimacy of this term was never claimed, just discussed. And its exceptional richness in antioxidants is key. Even then, Here is an example of a PubMed study showing significant antioxidant activity.

3) I'm here to add information to Moringa. Whether spinach should be discussed in the context of superfoods or not is outside my area of interest.

4) If you can find a reasonable argument why a non-Medlined source (no idea what constitutes an "impact factor") may not be used to back up nutritional claims, then I'll bite. Here is a systemic review in Phytotherapy Research of studies with human trials that suggests medicinal efficacy.

5) I can't find anything on that journal at WP:SOURCEWATCH, though I'm probably doing something wrong.

6) There are dozens of articles that discuss and study the medicinal properties of Moringa. For reference, peruse the available literature on PubMed. Even on its anti-carcinogenic properties, arguably the most controversial, There are numerous studies. This article even elucidates its ability to induce cancer apoptosis without harming normal cells. If the wording is the issue here, I can remove the phrase "evidence-based," which by your tone I assume is only allowed when it comes to carefully controlled pharmaceutical industry meta-studies. I want to reiterate that no claim is being made to its use as verified and pharma-approved medicine, rather to its potentially medicinal biochemical mechanisms, which in no way or shape can be denied at this point.

While I'm admittedly not as well-versed in WP policy and bureaucracy, there is a breadth of available literature with reliable, independent findings on its biochemical properties (notably antioxidant, anti-hyperglycemic, cancer-suppressant and antibacterial). All I ask is to please review this before making claims, such as that it has no dietary antioxidants, to support your reverts and brand me as the disruptive one. In the mean time, I will educate myself on WP:MEDRS. If the quality of the sources used is the main issue, this can be amended. There is enough out there. Auree ^★★ 00:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2 and 6: We don't discuss superfoods in nutrition or medical articles because that term is a fad, unscientific, and not accepted or used by any credible nutrition or medical organization; there is no point in perpetuating it. Although there may be basic research publications on moringa leaf nutrients or phytochemicals, we don't discuss their results as encyclopedic content unless they have been validated in a high-quality review, which doesn't exist. PMID 31224959 is an early-stage basic research study, unusable in an encyclopedia; see WP:MEDASSESS, bottom of left pyramid. For further education about medical sources, review this. The terms antioxidant, anti-hyperglycemic, cancer-suppressant and antibacterial are biochemical and clinical terms, which are not used unless supported by a clinical journal review, which doesn't exist; Phytotherapy Research is an herbalism journal, which is not valid for Wikipedia's clinical content. 4: Medical sources for Wikipedia articles are not used if there is no Medline index, a qualification used for journals sufficiently established to be cataloged by MEDLINE. Conclusion: there is nothing you are proposing that adds usefully to the article. --Zefr (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're in disagreement about the term superfood. However, albeit a commercialized fad or unscientific, "superfood" is a documented phenomenon, and Moringa is widely used in its context. We are going to have readers come to this article and look for that information. If this is covered in a neutral, NPV fashion (which I might need your help with), without making definitive claims of its legitimacy, that is encyclopedic content. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a WP article on superfoods.

"unless they have been validated in a high-quality review, which doesn't exist." - I have pointed to numerous reviews from leading experts on Moringa, as well as high-quality medical studies that investigate its medicinal effects. "Phytotherapy Research is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing original research papers, short communications, reviews, and letters on medicinal plant research. Key areas of interest are pharmacology, toxicology, and the clinical applications of herbs and natural products in medicine, from case histories to full clinical trials, including studies of herb-drug interactions and other aspects of the safety of herbal medicines." I fail to see how this constitutes as a mere herbalism journal, and even if it is, it's a respected, high-quality, peer-reviewed one. By the way, it is also indexed in MEDLINE.

You explained these sources cannot in themselves definitively be used to back medical claims, which I can understand. However, they can back tentative findings that suggest (keyword) Moringa contains biochemical properties that may (keyword) be of use medicinally. We can also phrase it as "though evidence is inconclusive, preliminary findings suggest" if you would like. This, in combination with remarkably well-rounded and high nutritional values for all its edible components, its ease of growth and propagation, and its resistance to drought and pests, have led to its title as a superfood, irrespective of its scientific credibility. That's all the article should explain, without making any definitive statements or medical claims. I am going to do some more research and rephrase the information in a more neutral manner that does not infer medical conclusions. I will post it here once done, so you can further help where I'm off track. Auree ^★★ 03:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - Here are three other review articles from MEDLINE-index journals: PMID 30568375 from the Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences, PMID 29503616 from Frontiers in Pharmacology (which states "Moringa species are well-known for their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and antihyperglycemic activities"), and another from PLOS One. This makes a total of 5 peer-reviewed meta-analyses or reviews, MEDLINED and otherwise, that support such biochemical properties, whereas you have provided none to suggest otherwise. It's clear this plant has at least tentative medicinal value; arguing otherwise borders on blatant ignorance. This should not be disregarded merely because pharma-funded interests lie elsewhere, although I agree attention must be given to proper phrasing. Auree ^★★ 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're failing to distinguish between reviews of primary (basic lab) research, such as PMID 30568375 and PMID 29503616, and reviews of completed, randomized controlled trials, which support encyclopedic medical content, but are not available for moringa (or any food). See WP:MEDREV: "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." The J of Pharm Bioallied Sci has an unacceptable impact factor of 0.29, so is not usable. Further, the Frontiers journals are not used in Wikipedia per WP:SOURCEWATCH. I am not seeing anything further to discuss here. --Zefr (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not seeing anything further to discuss here" Me neither, as you're missing the point with your incessant scrutiny and arbitrarily varying criteria as to what constitutes as scientific. I would like a third opinion here, as you're just policy-policing at this point.

"but are not available for moringa (or any food)" - You're telling me the reviews I've provided, with a combined 300+ academic studies on the plant, are unviable because they do not conform to the randomized controlled trial format. So, by your definition, widely studied medicinal properties of plants should be foregone on Wikipedia because the journals or study formats you are preferential to are not interested in them. How is that actionable? "Systematic reviews of literature of overall good quality and consistency, addressing specific recommendation, have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies." I'm not sure less reliability means no reliability, especially when, again, these reviews are used to support preliminary tentative findings rather than definitive medical claims. Also, please provide a source that states the impact factor dictates the usability of a journal on WP. I've stated that I am looking to rephrase so as not to make such medical claims (e.g. "primary research suggests x, although these findings are yet to be verified in clinical trials"). I have even asked you for your help, yet you haven't commented on this yet. Auree ^★★ 05:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Through reference to reviews of primary research in weak journals and "300+ academic studies" (most of which are in unreliable herbalism publications), you seem to be arguing for discussion of ongoing primary research, similar to what one might include as background in a journal report or textbook chapter. This format, however, is unencyclopedic, as discussed in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6-7. We already refer to this primary literature generally in the section on traditional medicine and research where a statement similar to your suggestion exists: Despite considerable preliminary research on the biological properties of moringa components, few high-quality studies on humans justify its use to treat human diseases. Unfortunately, the Leone source is used to support that statement, but that journal - Int J Mol Sci - is predatory and on Sourcewatch, so should be removed from the article. It is possible the Stohs article in Phytotherapy Research could be used, but I maintain the Stohs article makes numerous unsubstantiated, misleading claims about anti-disease benefits (based on very low-quality evidence, which is a consistent characteristic of exaggeration by authors on moringa) that should not be used in the encyclopedia. On impact factor, the Wikipedia medical editor community typically uses it as a journal quality screen for which a score lower than 2.0 disqualifies a source. You could start a discussion about this debate on WT:MED for further editor input on these issues. --Zefr (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, and also for noticing the Leone source. You rightfully note the lack of pharmaceutical/conventional studies, but since this is a plant with uses in traditional medicine, I think those should be given due weight within a literary context. I am looking at entries for moringa in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, which is medlined with an acceptable impact factor of 3.11 and widely used in FA-quality botany articles.

When I have more time, I will continue to improve on the article with proper caution towards any medical claims. This discourse, while somewhat grinding, has helped me gain in understanding and I thank you for that. Your continued diligence to see where I’m off-track would be appreciated. Auree ^★★ 16:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having a look now. The article needs a thorough going-over - some basic info missing and some repeated. Looking at the contested bit, I have to agree with Zefr on their concerns in the first instance. That is not to say that some material can't be readded. I'd be really wary of going near terms like "superfood". As yet I have very little familiarity with the plant and there is a quagmire of material to wade through....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in. I agree that the information is not ideally presented, and also that traditional medicine findings do not substantiate any health food status. I think a section on its commercialization is warranted. This, if anywhere, would also be the place for a very brief mention of press discussion (from proponents and opponents alike) on its widespread marketing and branding as a "superfood" – albeit with the caveat that this is an unofficial, dubious designation. This article gives a good overview of the commercial situation, and Mark E. Olson, leading expert on Moringa, has written an opinion piece on both valid and harmful uses of the term in the context of Moringa. Auree ^★★ 04:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, @Hylian Auree: you were asking about FA plant articles with some similar sort of coverate to compare. We have Ailanthus altissima, Perovskia atriplicifolia and Verbascum thapsus as model articles on plants with some use in traditional medicine. Not sure what we have on plant ones as food No plants but two fungi - Boletus edulis and Hydnum repandum. I will look at the other links in more detail soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these points of reference. The "Uses" section of Perovskia atriplicifolia, the most recently promoted article, seems to offer a balanced encyclopedic template for the robust phytochemical properties and traditional medicine applications of M. oleifera. Auree ^★★ 05:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Thanks for the note on antioxidants. Is there any way we can reword the "potential properties" (which is quite general and uninformative) without being suggestive? Since both sources refer to M. oleifera's role in oxidative stress, how about "to determine their potential role in oxidative stress" or "their potential effects on oxidative stress". I think that's neutral enough without making any biomedical inferences. Auree ^★★ 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the article and on this talk page is about Nutrition which applies to human health and diseases. Mentioning 'antioxidant' there in the article is inappropriate and inevitably misleading. Antioxidant properties do apply to defenses of the leaf itself from uv radiation, insect and animal predators, plant diseases, etc., but I don't see a source in the article for those properties, probably because it hasn't been studied in moringa leaves. Polyphenols affecting human oxidative stress cannot be assessed because polyphenols are rapidly metabolized and the fate of their metabolites cannot be traced in vivo. We could say: "Extracts from leaves contain various polyphenols, which have undefined properties in humans." --Zefr (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, although "undefined properties" doesn't sound quite right when several meta-analysis and systematic reviews (1 2 3) and authoritative sites such as Mayoclinic and MSKCC (The antioxidant (7) (8), hypolipidemic, and antiatherosclerotic activities of MO are thought to help prevent cardiovascular diseases) do discuss health benefits and antioxidant potential. I don't think mentioning its potential mechanisms in oxidative stress, although insufficiently determined in humans, is misleading if the research is there to back it up. I think documented phytochemical mechanisms such as these belong in plant articles, irrespective of whether they have human/medicinal applications, provided we explicitly state the difference. What about "to determine whether they have effects on oxidative stress"?Auree ^★★ 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those studies provides proof that polyphenols specifically are bioactive or were specifically involved in anti-disease activity. "Evidence by association" does not mean proof of effect, and does not meet WP:MEDASSESS. Polyphenol properties - especially for those in moringa leaves - remain undefined in vivo. --Zefr (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was never implying that those sources were proof of anything. All they prove, like the moringa-specific sources, are that polyphenols are under basic research for their potential effects in humans. And all I expect is that this information be stated honestly and encyclopedically. How does that previous wording or something similar sound? Auree ^★★ 00:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited here. --Zefr (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. It is nice to reach a consensus with you. ;) Auree ^★★ 02:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that could be useful may be added here for eventual incorporation. Auree ^★★ 12:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Chapter with useful information that may bolster most sections.
• Discusses the prescribing of M. oleifera by medical practitioners in the plant's distribution range as complementary to pharmaceutical treatments. Also discusses many uses in traditional medicine.
• Moringa featured in National Institutes of Health's Earth day contest of 2008.
• List of nutrients (for human body) and comparing with food amounts. And note to studies. (english:) http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zentrum-der-gesundheit.de%2Fernaehrung%2Fnahrungsergaenzung%2Fpflanzenpulver%2Fmoringa-oleifera
  (german:) https://www.zentrum-der-gesundheit.de/ernaehrung/nahrungsergaenzung/pflanzenpulver/moringa-oleifera
  

Reminder per above discussion with User:Zefr: Favor secondary research from journals with an acceptable impact factor. When discussing biomedical properties, avoid non-human studies and favor reviews from MEDLINE-indexed journals per WP:MEDRS; potential clinical findings should be substantiated by systematic reviews or meta-analyses of human trials. Editor input on the encyclopedic relevance and reliability of these sources is always appreciated. Auree ^★★ 19:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Systematic review including six randomized controlled trials in Breastfeeding Medicine of moringa's galactagogue properties.
• Review in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy of nanomedical properties
• Review in Phytotherapy Research of five human trials – as noted by Zephr, these tentative findings should be interpreted with caution.
• Systematic review of natural compounds for Alzheimer's disease therapy in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, which briefly discusses Moringa's potential bioactive compounds in this respect.
• Review of potential properties in hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia. Note on Frontiers in Pharmacology per WP:SOURCEWATCH: the Frontier journals are characterized as "very hit and miss". Sourcewatch further states that "This list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them ... While many, if not most, publications and publishers on this list have some questionable aspects to their publishing practices, these can still be reliable (or be otherwise acceptable) in limited circumstances." This review discusses basic research on the potential properties of M. oleifera with respect to hyperglycemia in dyslipidemia, similar to findings discussed on the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center page, but with more elaboration. The author appears to have a fair and neutral stance, concluding that potential properties are apparent but noting the limited number and variable design of studies and stating that "before M. oleifera leaf formulations can be recommended as medication in the prevention or treatment of diabetes and CVD, it is necessary that the scientific basis of their efficacy, the therapeutic modalities of their administration and their possible side effects be more rigorously determined."

Auree ^★★ 19:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Trickipaedia - This edit and its sources are not reliable. The sources do not meet the WP:MEDRS standard. This is just Ayurveda quackery nonsense. You have reached WP:3RR with no talk page discussion to gain WP:CON. 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you done a search in Google scholar or PubMed?--Trickipaedia (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no WP:MEDRS-quality reviews to indicate that moringa is good for anything except as a food source in regions with malnutrition. Zefr (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This[2] link used in the article as a reference lists numerous medicinal uses and related studies. Should this link also be removed as a source?--Trickipaedia (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CABI is a reliable source for botanical content. It is not a WP:MEDRS source, and is not used to imply or support medicinal uses. Zefr (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo this? [3] This is not medical content but a biochemical/microbiological one. Also, more importantly, are you the final authority on this page? Or is there a Head Moringa Boss in Chief I can talk to?--Trickipaedia (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

´Sadnessly´ it is (from) an online-shop, but is very correct titled as knowledge-site there, the article there.
I post the link to the german site and a link to it as translated site to english. German https://www.naturalfoodshop.de/wissen/4379/moringa-der-wunderbaum, english http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalfoodshop.de%2Fwissen%2F4379%2Fmoringa-der-wunderbaum.
Alone the sources of the sayings noted there, I think, are to recommend.
--Visionhelp (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]