Talk:Ocimum tenuiflorum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holy Basil[edit]

If this really is the same as Holy Basil, then Tulsi and Holy Basil should be combined into one page. (I think they are the same, judging by various sources on the net.) Singkong2005 07:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should add a short summary in the Holy Basil page and link to Tulsi, as we may not be able to dominate it with religious info. (The scientific name is the same but Krishna tulsi does have purple stems - something the holy basil page denies?) --Pranathi 20:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Botanically they are the same species (at least as of now), but different cultivars. See also Ocimum Shyamal 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the botanical name to Ocimum tenuiflorum with the synonym (O. sanctum) in the taxobox.
I removed Thai Holy Basil is a different cultivar of the same species. [citation needed] because there appears to be no such thing as Thai holy basil. There is Thai basil (different species, no relevance to this article), and there is Holy basil (tulsi). Details of taxonomy on the Talk:Holy Basil page. Mark Nesbitt 12:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tulsi is the Indian word; Thai Holy Hasil might have been poor wording - it's not the common name, but it was meant to identify the one used in Thailand. The question is whether the Holy Basil used in Thailand is a different cultivar of the same species. I would assume so (different populations, after all, bound to be genetically different). --Singkong2005 13:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Tulsi has such a rich traditional background in India, I don't think it would be a good idea to merge this page into the Holy Basil one, which is pretty sparse in comparison. Better just to mention both in each article--GourangaUK 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're merged now, which is fair enough if the terms refer to the same plant. I suggest moving it to Holy Basil though - I think tulsi is the Indian term isn't it? It's a bit confusing when talking about the Thai context. --Singkong2005 13:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very confused now. I've grown Thai Basil, the popular sweet basil, and the different varieties of Tulsi. The commonly grown 'Thai Basil' is definitely different from Tulsi in flavor and look, and more like a distinctive sweet basil (with slightly more intense flavor). I can't imagine Tulsi being used for cooking because of it's strong pungent flavor, and have never noticed it's distinct flavor at Thai restaurants. Some sources that I've seen on the internet indicate that Thai 'holy basil' is different, others mix them all together with Tulsi, but not very reliably. Photos that I've seen make them seem slightly different. But I haven't seen any authoratative taxonomy that gives latin names for the differences (thai 'holy' vs. tulsi). Having latin names for each from a reliable authority would help determine this. That's why that system was constructed, just to resolve language and cultural differences with plants. I'll do more research, but any taxonomy references would help, especially from scientific sources - not just from cookbooks. ॐ Priyanath 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is it true they cook pork with tulasi leaves? The combination of Tulasi with meat in food preparations is considered to be extremely offensive and disrespectful to Tulasi. The Thais should take note of this because ancient Indian culture is still respected in Thailand, I believe. -59.95.12.93 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, this page says Thai Basil has a green stem and Holy Basil has a purple stem, but the Thai Basil page says Thai Basil has a purple stem. We need a citable reference to solve this problem. Pjrich 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi (Holy Basil) definitely has a purple stem, I can't say for sure on the Thai Basil? Regards, GourangaUK 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've grown Tulsi with green stem, and with purple stem. Both were definitely Tulsi (Ocimum tenuiflorum), just different cultivars. ॐ Priyanath 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you say that I can remember coming across green stemed Tulsi's as well. Should we change the line in the article - if Thai Basil is purple and green also then it doesn't bear any relevance in telling them apart? Rgds, GourangaUK 09:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?[edit]

Much of the text from the Tulsi page appears to have come from the following copyrighted page: Tulsi: The Holy Power Plant

Specifically:

1. The first paragraph of both articles are nearly identical

2. The 'Tulsi as a Deity' section is word for word the same

3. The 'Tulsi in Legends' section is derived from the article

Even if it's not a copyright violation, the WP version could/should be rewritten or modified. However, it's possible that about.com copied the article from Wikipedia. Any thoughts? ॐ Priyanath 01:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Priyanath - I agree with you, somewhat of the text on the about.com page is similar to the current article. It could be that about.com copied it from here as I've seen a number of other webistes recently copying from Wikipedia also. I've made a few minor structural changes today, I guess as long as it's less than 90% identical there shouldn't really be a problem? GourangaUK 11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GourangaUK, I think your changes help to make it appear different from the other article. It's probably still questionably a copyright violation (if it did come from there) but at least it looks less like a cut-and-paste job. I also made some minor changes to the overall organization of the article, since that was even more identical to the about.com version, all the way down to the main headings and their order. I moved up the introduction of Tulsi as an Ayurvedic treatment, because of its popularity and widespread use as such. Also added a few more references to scientific studies of this wonderful, blessed, and holy plant. ॐ Priyanath 00:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've confirmed from the edit history that this WP article was copied from about.com, not the other way around.... ॐ Priyanath 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Priyanatha, following your recent edits it looks more like it's own article now. I may try and add some extra information at some stage in future if I come along any more research. GourangaUK 09:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GuourangaUK, sounds good - I'll be adding to the Ayurvedic medicine section over time as I find more good research that can be cited on the Lord's sacred plant. ॐ Priyanath 15:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious significance in Buddhism (Thailand)?[edit]

I think it's called Holy Basil in Thailand - this would imply it has religious significance in Buddhism also...?

btw, can a Thai speaker please confirm that Krapow refers to Holy Basil, and not to the regular Thai Basil? Is Holy Basil the literal meaning of Krapow? Thanks. --Singkong2005 13:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Singkong, the Thai_Basil is listed on another page, as it is a slightly different form of basil, with a different tradition behind it. Maybe you could add more information to the other page, as it's very sparse at the moment? Best Wishes, GourangaUK 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did the Thais dare to cook Tulasi along with pork? Does tulasi have no religious significance in Thailand? -59.95.12.93 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my post above, since it also relates to this. ॐ Priyanath 15:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

This should be moved to Tulasi, which would be more neutral and less Hindi-centric. --Grammatical error 05:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps even Thulasi ? Shyamal 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tulsi is the general spelling, or Tulasi - I don't see much of a difference in the spellings personally, although the first is more correct in terms of pronunciation and in Google Tulsi gives 932,000 hits compared to only 358,000 hits on Tulasi, so of the two I would prefer to keep with the more popular variation. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tulsi is correct in terms of Hindi pronunciation, but Tulasi is the more classical version and it is pronounced like that by most South Indians. Thulasi would be equally incorrect (it would just be catering to Tamils). --Grammatical error 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are everyone's current thoughts on this? Tulsi, Tulasi, or Holy Basil? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from Tulsi to Ocimum tenuiflorum as the result of a move request. WP:TOL states that where ther is "no reasonably unique" common name, the scientific name should be used, and WP:PLANTS recommends the scientific name in almost all cases anyway. --Stemonitis 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the TOL guideline not being used ? It now reads Tulasi (Ocimum tenuiflorum). Most plants that have multiple regional names are best treated under the scientific name with redirects from the other names, like all other botanical articles. Shyamal 03:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back to the scientific name. User:GourangaUK had moved it to the title with the common and scientific names, but that user probably wasn't aware of the flora naming convention. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Basil and Rose were not titled scientifically, and assumed there would not be a problem in including both versions in the title. If that's not the case, then okay, but most people would refer to the common name (either Tulasi or Holy Basil) in discussion. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok if you weren't aware of the naming convention. WP:NC (flora) has information regarding the use of scientific names vs. common names. Common names are used only if the plant is "economically or culturally significant enough", and even then it is preferred to have two articles--one under the scientific name to describe the botanical aspects of the plant and one under the common name to describe other aspects. In this case, I would say the article isn't developed enough to require a split and since there is more than one common name, it is best to have it at the scientific name. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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 . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thai holy basil[edit]

I have tried to clear up the confusion over the use of the phrase holy basil in reference to Thai food. The confusion stems from the fact that there are actually three types of basil used in Thai food. There is horapa (โหระพา), which is generally referred to in English as Thai basil - this is a type of O. basilicum. Then there is krapao (กะเพรา), which is also generally referred to in English as holy basil, and which is a variety or form of O. tenuiflorum, and then there in maenglak (แมงลัก), which is referred to in English as lemon basil. Unfortunately, to add to the confusion, a lot of people mistakenly refer to horapa as holy basil.

I've changed the 'holy basil' redirect page so that it's now a disambiguation page which points both to 'Ocimum tenuiflorum' and to 'Thai holy basil'. Even though they're just different varieties of the same species, I think it's a good idea to keep the two things separate since the 'Ocimum tenuiflorum' page in its current form is essentially an article on an aspect of religion and it would seem rather confusing then to have sections of the same page referring to cooking.

I don't know a great deal about Thai holy basil myself, other than how to cook it. This is rather why I would like there to be a separate page on it, so that I can find out a little bit more about it. If there is at least a stub then people can contribute and add to it.

Jowiltshire (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Thai Holy Basil is Ocimum Tenuiflorum (which these much more reliable sources seem to confirm [1][2][3],), then it should probably be included here. Plants on Wikipedia usually have one article per species/variety. I think you should undo all those redirects and move the information about Thai Holy Basil back here. There should be a separate section in this article about Thai Holy Basil and how it's used for cooking. ~ priyanath talk 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleared up the confusion by redirecting the various pages on Ocimum tenuiflorum to this article. It's not even clear that the thai holy basil is a different variety of O. tenuiflorum - no reliable taxonomic sources make that statement, only one or two online personal cooking sites do so. Even if it is a different variety, it should still redirect here, since they are all: Ocimum tenuiflorum. See other Category:Redirects to scientific names for examples. ~ priyanath talk 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no separate Thai Holy Basil page, and there is no mention of the use of Holy Basil in Thai cooking on this page. There needs to be either a section on culinary uses or a separate page that contains this information.Sgrandpre (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Material moved to talk page[edit]

As per the edit I made previously, I deleted the material below from the article. My justification was as follows: (1) the tone was not encyclopedic, (2) it was disorganized, (3) it made medical claims (e.g. "They are also good antidotes for poison") that appeared to be dubious in nature and were not backed up with references. There's probably something that can be gleaned from what was written, but it seemed to be mainly an unsourced expansion of the Ayurvedic medicine section, which is significantly more concise and which contains references. I apologize in advance if I have caused any inconvenience. Sepia officinalis (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Various appellations of the dark and light varieties of Tulsi — Tulasi, surasa, gramya, sulabha, bahumanjari, apetaraakshasi, gauri, shoolaghni and devadundubhi are some of the Sanskrit appellations of Tulsi, each one of which is significant.

One that has no equal, bears or tolerates no comparison, and so is beyond comparison - Tulasi The rasa or juice of which is best— Suras.

One that flourishes in open land especially in village areas — Gramya.

One that can be obtained easily — Sulabha.

One that bears many clusters of flowers, or inflorescences - Bahumanjari.

One from whose sight rakshasas and sins (which share the evil nature of rakshasas) flee - Apetaraakshasi.

The fair one, the light-coloured one (describing 1ighter coloured variety of Tulsi) — Gauri.

One that destroys (kills) pain—Shoolaghni.

One that gives pleasure to the gods, and so is pleasure-giving as the dundubhi drums — Devadundubhi.

The appellations and qualities of the Barbari variety of Tulsi : Barbari, Tuvari, Tungi, Kharapushpa, Ajagandhika and Parnsa are the Sanskrit appellations of Barbari Tulsi. But the darker variety of Barbari Tulsi is known as Kathinjar or Kutherak. The lighter-coloured variety of Barbari Tulsi is known as Arjak. There is a third variety, of Barbari Tulsi, which is known as Vatapatra. All the three varieties are dry, cool in effect and bitter in taste, cause a burning sensation, are sharp, stimulate appetite are beneficial to the heart, increase the powers of digestion, are easy to digest and stimulate the production of pitta. These varieties of Tulsi are therefore effective in curing excess of kapha, vata, toxaemia, itching and worms. They are also good antidotes for poisons.

The significance of the various names of the Barbari varieties of Tulsi is explained below :

One that accepts a large variety of different kinds of virtues - Barbari.

One whose juice is somewhat bitter, or one that destroys kapha, vayu and toxins - Tuvari.

One that destroys poisons, or one that grows to a great height - Tungi.

One that bears rough, hard flower clusters - Kharapushp.

One that possesses a smell resembling that of goats - Ajagandhika.

One that sheds leaves, or that has a beauteous appearance because of leaves - Parnasa.

One that helps the digestion of even hard materials because of its sharpness and capacity to stimulate digestion - kathinjar, the darker variety of Barbari Tulsi.

One that destroys kapha, vayu, etc. - Kutherak, the darker variety of Barbari Tulsi.

One that confers or acquires a fair complexion - Arjak, the lighter-coloured variety of Barbari Tulsi.

One whose leaves resemble the leaves of the banyan tree - VataPatra, the third variety of Barbari Tulsi.

In Hinduism[edit]

On 17 Jan 2011 the section In Hinduism was removed by an IP address making his second-ever edit. I propose it be reinstated. Whatever its inadequacies (and in fact it was relatively well-referenced) it treats a very important area. The plant is most widely known as holy basil, and the holy aspect should be covered. Spicemix (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing African connection?[edit]

The article gives an impression that it is available only n Asia. I have seen bundles of Basil stalks with leaves and flower being sold in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. I am given to understand that it is used in the food. I am not a botanist and hence is not sure whether it is the same plant or a related one. It has the same smell and the leaves and flowers look the same. I have also seen dried and crushed basil leaves being sold in the supermarket in Addis Ababa.

May be someone can add information about these. --K N Unni (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely grown in Africa and Asia. Thewritegirl (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction[edit]

Im new to wiki, but this line: " balancing different processes in the body, and helpful for adapting to stress" has the source(footnote) number 16. I just like you to know that that source is invalid, try click it. Also, there is in this article no mention of the negative effect on rats ability to reproduce. It hasnt been tested on humans, but it seems worrying and should be mentioned.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12099405 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1506071 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.130.66.155 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor?[edit]

1000 words on a spice and not one mention of what it tastes like? Surely we can do better. Amber388 (talk)

There are two flavors of which I know. Most varieties smell strongly like Juicy Fruit gum, very sweet and unique. There is also a variety that smells of camphor. The flower stalk bud is pinched off and the aroma breathed. It is known to help stop perspiration odors. My Flatley (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O. tenuiflorum genomics[edit]

Hello @Zefr: I am troubled by your pattern of removal of relevant, referenced, and neutrally phrased material on a large number of organism articles. In this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ocimum_tenuiflorum&diff=1067716801&oldid=1066885919) you should be aware that genomics information is interesting in any organism article and if available should not be removed. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 January 2022 (UTC)

a) The genomics statement is/was already sourced, b) the sequence appears to be an unconfirmed draft from 2015, and c) the URL inside [...] leads to a database, which I removed as not of general concern per WP:NOTGUIDE. "My pattern" is to challenge unsourced or poorly sourced content, which is a good characteristic in science editing, and so I intend to continue with that pattern. For example, PMC 4552454 - which appears to contain useful genomic information - diverts from science to call tulsi "medicinal", a derivation from Ayurveda nonsense, so is a candidate for removal if a better source is available. Zefr (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym[edit]

Hello @YorkshireExpat: I agree with removing that source however I think Ocimum sanctum should remain because it's the most commonly used synonym. I don't have a source for that however. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices:, yeah the source had little to do with anything. I appreciate your point that the synonym may be very widely used and is therefore notable. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surasa?[edit]

If Tulsi's other name is the Surasa, aka. the daughter of Daksha, that would conflict with her having being the chaste wife of Shankhachuda. So, what does Surasa refer to and why have you listed it here? Stjohn1970 (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Microbiology[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bsita200 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bsita200 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic studies provide no useful conclusions[edit]

The section highlighted below was removed because a) the first paper supposes medicinal properties of tulsi - which do not exist (no WP:MEDRS sources support such a claim) - and b) there are no supportive reviews or conclusions from either study that inform the general user about significant biology of this plant.

The genome of the tulsi plant has been sequenced and reported as a draft, estimated to be 612 mega bases, with results showing genes for biosynthesis of anthocyanins in Shyama Tulsi, ursolic acid and eugenol in Rama Tulsi. PMID 26315624 and PMID 31645966. The predicted proteins and other annotations are available.

Zefr (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RS[edit]

Hello @Zefr: This is not medical information Special:Diff/1151035883. I added that so I'm quite certain, quite certain that Chen is a SECONDARY and quite certain that biosynthesis is relevant to the article. Additionally Special:Diff/1151039850 are RS, including Yamani which is cited by Mahfooz. Publication by Frontiers doesn't make a source unreliable. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The genome content and source removed was this with the farcical title phrase, "...genes behind its strong medicinal properties" which are then addressed numerous times in the article. Tulsi has no scientifically confirmed medicinal properties. See WP:MEDRS, which represents what the medical community would conclude.
Concerning my removal of the chemistry edit, Frontiers media are mentioned on the first page of WP:CITEWATCH - we should provide more reliable sources than Frontiers, especially when biological or medical effects are implied, as those two Frontiers sources falsely state from in vitro studies only. Zefr (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions do not withstand WP:RS or WP:MEDRS. WP:CITEWATCH is not a list of sources to be removed. If it were a bot would do so automatically. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources for phytochemical contents[edit]

This revert was justified because a) Molecules is a MDPI journal suspected of predatory publishing - see disclaimer on WP:CITEWATCH #1, and b) the Nepalese source in CPB has a low impact factor (1.9), i.e., it does not have sufficient publishing history or peer review to be trusted. Zefr (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI is no longer included on Beall's list of predatory journals. Additionally, a recent article alleging that MDPI is predatory has been retracted. See the link below:
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed-mdpi-journals-as-predatory-retracted-and-replaced/
While i understand the concern about a low impact factor journal, three things should be noted. First, this particular article has been cited 42 times according to google scholar. That alone is a good indication that experts in the field (natural products chemistry) respect that particular article. Second, many articles published in high impact journals have later been retracted, so impact factor is hardly a good measuring stick for publication quality. Third, these molecules have been reported by multiple studies (citations available in the edit history). It is highly unlikely that multiple teams of researchers across the world all made the same mistake in their analysis. There is even an additional citation to support the existence of tulsinols:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7448914/ Jeremyseidel (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed this on the watchlist before checking out for the day. Jeremyseidel, you should not be adding edits that cite your own publications. It is a form of WP:COI. Otherwise, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus to include this content. Acceptance of MDPI has been waxing and waning a bit in recent years for some, but at least when you get into subjects that touch about medical areas, we generally require secondary WP:MEDRS sources, not primary studies like your own. My userpage gives some guidance for scientist editors, but the main thing right now is not to edit war your content in. KoA (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ocimum_tenuiflorum&oldid=1212871668"