Talk:Castor oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OTRS icon The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available as ticket 2007010910018816 for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.


Contents

[edit] Older discussion

Earlier discussion moved to:

[edit] POV and possibly COI

Castoroil101, you obviously feel very strongly about this topic. Please don't take the following comments as attacks on you or the article, they are meant to improve the encyclopediac quality of the article. Changes in the article show up verbatim on http://www.kristinasoil.com in response to comments or changes made in Wikipedia. This leads me to suspect that you are closely involved with Kristina's Oil, a commercial venture selling castor oil and castor beans. Labeling anything negative about castor oil as "propaganda" shows bias. Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are useful guides. Silverchemist 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

I have added three references to the section about the castor oil in Fascist Italy. Please remove the tag asking for references.Silverchemist 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Silverchemist, you too, obviously feel very strongly about this topic and you like to play with words.

The Silverchemist stated above “changes in the article show up verbatim on http://www.kristinasoil.com in response to comments or changes made in Wikipedia. This leads me to suspect that you are closely involved with Kristina’s Oil, a commercial venture selling castor oil and castor seeds.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the top of this page to see that “The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.kristinasoil.com/fyi/html.“

Is the word propaganda taboo on Wikipedia? I have read many articles about Castor oil online and many of them simply contain false or misinformation (propaganda) on Castor oil. If I didn’t contribute something to the Wikipedia Castor Oil topic, it would still contain more propaganda than facts. At least the Castor oil facts I reference have verifiable and reliable scientific research or Government References to back them. The Silverchemist needs to remove the tag on “Industrial Castor Oil.”

In my opinion, Wikipedia should stand for factual information on “some topic.” Whether its “Pro or Anti-some topic” is irrelevant when it comes to facts, just verifiable and reliable facts are relevant -- no propaganda allowed!

The Silverchemist seems hypocritical, because the Silverchemist pretends to be neutral on this subject, and then manipulates the “Wikipedia: Manual of Style” as though it were a shield from hypocrisy for some agenda. The Silverchemist challenges, twists, and disregards pro-castor oil facts with prior words. Yet, by the Silverchemists own words in the last sentence above, “I have added three references to the section about the castor oil in Fascist Italy. Please remove the tag asking for references”, the Silverchemist clearly shows a lack of neutrality by supporting this section.

I invite any Wikipedian with any sense of neutrality to read that section (Castor oil as a tool of political terror -- that the Silverchemist edits), and not view it as pure anti-castor oil propaganda?

If any statement, from any source, of verifiable and reliable fact creates a conflict of interest for Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is destined to become an encyclopedia of propaganda – not reliable information. Castoroil101 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

Castoroil101 I am involved in this article because I do have a specific interest in one of the industrial uses of castor oil, but more importantly I see it as a case where some of the basic principles of Wikipedia need to be upheld. I don't play with words here; I use them as tools, tools as precise as I can make them.
Regarding the use of castor oil as a terror weapon, that section was added, removed (unilaterally, by you last December), debated and reintroduced prior to my involvement. My first edit of that section was to add three references (Encyclopedia Britannica, Time magazine and a published, best-selling biography) at your specific request for more references. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
Using Wikipedia to balance what you see as a bias on the web against the materials that you are seeking to sell is WRONG! If you want a review of the propriety of your involvement, I will post a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Wikipedia articles should stand alone as neutral articles. A casual user will not see what you see as a wide-spread bias against castor oil. That user should be able to read this article and get a clear, balanced perspective of the topic. Castor oil is a fairly unique natural product with many useful industrial applications (and I have enhanced this section) and medical uses. It is not a "miracle" compound, or a cure-all. It is a chemical with benefits, some negative aspects and a long and varied histroy of use.Silverchemist 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you’re right you do use words as tools, specifically, tools for propaganda.

If you think “Time magazine and someone’s biography” are verifiable and reliable factual references, then you have no business writing on Wikipedia.

You are WRONG about Castor oil. You will never have a clue what it is with your attitude and you will never be an authority on Castor oil, unless you back your data with verifiable and reliable references. You, Silverchemist, use “tools” to to justify propaganda for your agenda and you can stop trying to deny it because it's obvious. Now you intimidate me with the “Wikipedia: Requests for comment”. What will become of Wikipedia when all Wikipedians think like you? Now, that’s something to be concerned about – The Encyclopedia of Propaganda. Castoroil101 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC).

Castoroil101, you think Enclcopedia Britannica, a historical issue of Time and a biography about Mussolini published by the Oxford University Press don't constitute satisfactory references? My apologies if they aren't up to the standards of kristinasoil.com. I am more than a little tired of your constant innuendo and overt personal attacks. As a professional chemist with more than thirty years experience, including analysis and reactions of triglycerides, I think I can speak with some authority on what castor oil is and is not. I can also write without bias since I am not deriving personal financial gain from the material being discussed.Silverchemist 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
First off Silverchemist, you started this discussion by questioning hard facts on Industrial Castor oil, specifically, data in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Also, your detective work Silverchemist/Sherlock made this article personal; so don’t try to shift the cause.

Again, the data I input on Wkipedia is based on hard facts that you choose to disregard and those hard facts are based on verifiable and reliable scientific research and government references.

Now, if you really were a so-called “chemist for over thirty years” (which I doubt), you would know the difference between hard facts and fiction [E. B., Time, and Biographies (a press prints what they’re told to print)]. Then again, perhaps you were one of those who spent years on the job and as the saying goes, “years on the job does not prove experience.”

With regard to bias, you have shown you cannot write without it. The data you input contains misinformation (propaganda), and no hard facts. The real reason for your bias is unknown, at this time: however, it may surface with your Diatribe. Castoroil101 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

Castoroil101, you are the one who made this personal and insist on denigrating anyone who opposes your views. You don't like the historical section on Mussolini's use of castor oil, but can you refute it? You don't accept Enclcopedia Britannica, a historical issue of Time and a biography about Mussolini published by the Oxford University Press as reliable references, so what would you accept as references for this section?
You want scientific references and evidence. Once before I suggested that you read what you use as references. Here is one example that I just removed. You (via Kristinasoil.com) noted the use of castor oil to induce labor, yet both quoted references were much less certain about the results than you indicated. One concluded that "Castor oil use in pregnancy is underreported worldwide. This small series represents the first attempt to evaluate the medication." while the other said "The only trial included in this review attempts to address the role of castor oil as an induction agent. The trial was small and of poor methodological quality. Further research is needed to attempt to quantify the efficacy of castor oil as an induction agent." There will be people reading this Wikipedia article who will accept what we write at face value and not go back and read the references. Great care is needed, especially if the topic oncerns health and safety of people. Try to keep this discussion civil, please?Silverchemist 06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was tempted to send you my CV listing my papers in refereed journals, list of patents and presentations at international scientific conferences, and so on, but then decided not to waste my time.Silverchemist 06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Copyvio

I've tagged the page as a copyright problem because significant portions of the text are verbatum copies from the page cited in the tag. It is entirely possible that the site listed copied them from a source we can copy from, but the article cites the pilfered site as the source. At the very least, we need a better source than some site pitching castor oil as the cure for all of the ills of the world. Mdbrownmsw 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You say it's a copyright violation, were you violated? Your entry above shows you don't like Castor oil. If you don't like a topic, then why even bother to be a Wikipedia critic on it? What's your motivation and what do you have against Castor oil? You could never be an expert on the topic because you don't like it. "Encyclopedia content must be verifiable" and most of the sources come from the U. S. Federal Government. Is there a better source for facts than the Federal Government? FYI, the Castor oil plant was put on this earth for a reason, to help people, just like all the other plants on this earth and humans need plants more than plants need humans. Sooner or later you will come to realize that plants are special simply because they help people and should be respected, not ridiculed. Until then, you can disregard and negate facts about beneficial plants all your life. But one thing is undeniable: plants are part of the natural world just like all living matter including the supreme human beings and all living matter will eventually return to the natural world because nature rules in the end. Castoroil101 09:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense, Castoroil101. Even if Mdbrownmsw has an agenda such as better sourcing, the fact remains that the information was copied verbatim in significant portions. It does not matter if Mdbrownmsw was violated; it appears that someone else's copyright has been. Shadowin 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shadowin for your input and you do make sense based on the information available to you. Copyright permission was granted today. It seems fair in the future to give copyright violation warnings prior to a page being tagged as a copyright violation. Also, can I have my deleted user page Castoroil101 back so we can communicate in another arena. Good Day Castoroil101 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Permission has been granted to copy, distribute and/or modify www.kristinasoil.com/fyi.html under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

We've recieved this permission on the OTRS system from the copyright holder of the website to licnese it under the GFDL (however it still needs a neutral point of view). Thanks, Martinp23 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The references in this article leave a lot to be desired. Using the website for a soap making handicraft shop as a primary reference for chemical composition is questionable. Many of the links to "Kristinasoil" are just links to other sites that may have a passing relation to the topic. The references in the "Castor oil in food" section are mixed up (offset?). One of the references to castor oil as the best lamp fuel in India is ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN years old. The other is to the use of castor oil in ancient Egypt. The references in the medicinal use part are good. I will try to add some references as time allows. This article reads like an advertisement for castor oil.Silverchemist 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to find some recent references to the use of castor oil for lighting with oil lamps. Apart from links to this Wikipedia article or the "Kristinasoil" site (which as mentioned above uses very old references) there is nothing. There are a few sites which talk about the smoke and odor from burning castor oil [1],[2] and [3]. Unless someone can provide an acceptable reference, I would like to remove this section on castor as a lamp oil.Silverchemist 04:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Licht und Lampen im westgriechischen Alltag. Beleuchtungsgerät des 6.-3. Jhs. v.Chr. in Selinunt. from Marcus Heinrich Hermanns states Rizinisöl as lamp oil.--Stone 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a book about an ancient use of castor oil. The english translation of the title is "Light and lamps in Western Greek everyday life. Lighting equipment of the 6th to 3rd centuries B.C. in Selinus". The section of the article speaks in the present tense about this use. Either the section is rewritten to be about ancient or historical use of castor oil as a lamp fuel, or it should be removed.Silverchemist 16:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest removing article section

I'm suggesting removing the section "Castor oil as a tool of political terror" inserted on 1/19/2007 by the administrator User:Infrogmation. The section does not provide credible references according to Taxman (above) and Castoroil101. The section does not merit mention according to Timothy Chen Allen (above) and according to Castoroil101 the section is utter non-sense as any encyclopedic product page could have a section "used as a tool of political terror," including water. Does an encyclopedia really need every product page to have a "used as a tool of political terror?" For example; shall I go to the gasoline page and insert a section that states gasoline was used by Hitler as a tool of political terror? Is this useful information for an encylopedia? Not at all, so this section must be removed. Castoroil101 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

That section had been in the article for a long time; I put it back. Castor oil is no doubt nifty stuff. That it has been abused and used for an historically infamous bad purpose shouldn't be censored from the article. If Hitler made a habit of killing his enemies with gasoline and this became notoriously well known (or if any other familiar substance or object was so used to an historically notable extent), that certainly would warrent note in the article. -- Infrogmation 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I remove the "old talk" garbage on this page.Castoroil101 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "garbage", but I'll create an archive for older discussion here. Also, I wish to note that the earlier comments by Taxman and Timothy Chen Allen are not in support of your proposed removal of mention of Fascist misuse of castor oil as you imply. -- Infrogmation 00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have created an archive for discussion older than the new year per your suggestion. -- Infrogmation 00:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Capital C's

According to the dictionary, castor oil isn't a proper noun, so it should only be capitalized at the beginning of sentences or when used as a subject heading. A really fun project is going to be going through and changing all of those capitals in sentences. If we do it one section at a time, it shouldn't be too bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwit (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Eye Irritant

The writter wrote that caster oil is an eye irritant but, I put Cold Pressed and Cold Processed Caster Oil in my eyes all the time. It's an old Ayurvedic remedy for dry eyes. "The simplest and best remedy for iritated eyes. Put a single drop of pure, genuine caster oil (without preservatives) into your eyes at bedtime."("The complete Book of Ayurvedic Home Remedies".Vasant D. Lad, B.A.M.S., M.A.Sc..Copyright 1998 by Vasant Lad, M.A.Sc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaBOB (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

First off, I would trust a manufacturers caution or warning before I would trust some unknown individual stating " Oh, I do this all the time, no problem." You see it's simple; how does this individual know for sure the oil they use is pure cold pressed Castor oil and that it has not been diluted to the point of being safe for use in the eyes? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this and like I said before, follow the manufacturers warnings or suffer the consequences if you like to experiment. Castoroil101 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Industrial Castor Oil

This section needs some references other than http://www.kristinasoil.com/fyi.html. If you look for the references to the "over a thousand patents", you get a link to a link to a link to a presentation which has one line (out of 27 pages) in it about patents. Claiming that castor oil provides superior lubrication compared to petroleum-based materials needs several authoritative references since this claim is so sweeping.Silverchemist 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to trust the chemists at the link provided when they state "over a thousand patents" versus going to the USPTO and look up the 28,000 + patents that contain the word (Castor and oil) just to count how many patents contain Castor oil. I believe most people that visit wikipedia don't want to waste their time counting patents; however, the Silverchemist can at the external (USPTO) link I added today. Castoroil101 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC).
If you read the statement "Castor oil's high lubricity (reduces friction) is superior to petroleum-based lubricants;" correctly, you will know it does not mean (as Silverchemist reads it) Castor oil alone is superior to petroleum-based lubricants. It simply means that Castor oil, like most vegetable-based oils, has more lubricity than petroleum-based lubricants. Regardless, I have added more external links to help you understand what all chemists know - that vegetable oils have more lubricity than petroleum-based lubricants. Castoroil101 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC).
Castoroil101 is taking this article far too personally. Requests for verification (which is different from trust) are not an attack on the veracity of the article (seeWikipedia:Verifiability) although the article is very pro-castor oil. The new reference to US patent office now also appears in http://www.kristinasoil.com/fyi.html. It looks like Castoroil101 is the webmaster for the site on which the Wikipedia article is based and to which many references point. Linking to the US patent office is not useful for the vast majority of users (those who can use patent searches would already have access to such databases), and is probably more confusing than helpful.
Regarding the statement about castor oil lubricity, I would suggest that writing it correctly to avoid ambiguity is the author's responsibility rather than the reader's responsibility to read it correctly. Statements like "to help you understand what all chemists know" are insulting and inaccurate. Please avoid them in the future. Castoroil101 should read the references before adding them. The first reference talks about "Directed Synthesis of Base Oils That Overcome Traditional Vegetable Oil Shortcomings", the second about how "some materials (free fatty acids, monoacylglycerols) considered contaminants resulting from production of biodiesel are the species responsible for the lubricity" and the third about how derivatives of castor oil (not castor oil itself) reduce friction. To be fair, the first reference does say "Vegetable oils offer unique advantages over petroleum derived products for lubricity and biodegradability", but does not mention castor oil (neither does the second reference). This article needs objectivity and accuracy.Silverchemist 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The facts are objective, verifiable and accurate; however, the Silverchemist disregards them. What's wrong with the U.S. Patent and Trademark link in response to the Silverchemist's need for patent verification? Also, what's wrong with the added government links to help you understand that vegetable oils (Castor oil is there) have more lubricity than petroleum oils? If the Silverchemist thinks being pro-Castor oil is taking this article too personally - then so be it! I'll bet 90% of Wikipedia data was written by the "pro-something" group, simply because those people have the knowledge to do so, versus those who could care less about verifiable or accurate data. On the other hand, anyone can write anti-Castor oil propaganda in this article, provided that it's verifiable. Castoroil101 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC).
My comments on the new references are listed above. Please read them. My objection to using the US patent office as a reference is also stated above. It is not a reference. If I search "monkey and oil" I get over 2000 hits, but that does not show that monkey oil (what ever that might be)is an industrially important material. Castoroil101 seems to have a vested interest in castor oil (note small "c") and makes no apology for the POV stance of his/her contributions. It is interesting that anything "anti-castor" is labeled propaganda. I am neither for nor against castor oil: it is just a chemical. What I am for is balanced, well-researched, well-referenced, and well-written Wikipedia articles.Silverchemist 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The Silverchemist continues to pollute this talk page with non-sense like "monkey oil". The Silverchemist starts this discussion questioning "over a thousand patents", and after I add a link to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for verification, the Silverchemist continues to question hard facts and chooses to disregard them. Again, The USPTO has over 28,000 + patents that contain the words (Castor and oil). It's clear, the Silverchemist is too lazy to read each patent completely to verify that there are, in fact, "over a thousand patents" that contain Castor oil. The games over Silverchemist (I doubt you are a chemist), find someone else to play with.Castoroil101 12:29, 01 August 2007 (UTC).
"I will not teach a man who is not anxious to learn, and will not explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to himself". a quote from Confucius to end this. I won't waste my time any more. Silverchemist 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename section to Use in Fascist Italy?

While the use described is clearly one of torture and coercion, terrorism is something of a blanket term which should, in general, be replaced by possible with something more specific. "Use in fascist Italy" seems a more instructive title. 71.193.188.203 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Section renamed to say "intimidation" rather than "terror".Silverchemist 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "GRASE"

I reverted an edit that altered the sentence: Today, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes castor oil as generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) for over-the-counter use as a laxative to: Today, castor oil is generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) as a laxative by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)...

"generally recognized as safe and effective" is an FDA categorization as indicated by the acronym GRASE, which is used in many FDA publications. I agree that the proposed wording would read better if "generally recognized as safe and effective" was an ordinary phrase. But it has special meaning at the FDA and should not be broken up. Any rewording should keep it as a unitary phrase.

I might take a stab at rewording it myself. I agree it's fairly ugly as it stands. -- Terry Carroll 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. On a re-read, I see that the edit actually just removed a redundancy, and kept the phrase intact, although it did lessen the phrase's distinctness as a category. I must write 100 times, "I will not edit Wikipedia before coffee...." -- Terry Carroll 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medicinal use of castor oil

I started cleaning up that "GRASE" sentence and got carried away and ended up copy-editing that entire section. It would be great if someone with deep expertise would review this and clean up the things I couldn't. I've indicated a few that stood out to me in <!--comments-->. -- Terry Carroll 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the reference for "Emla" cream and the reference itself is wrong. The reference cited in this article (and this article) state the Emla cream contains castor oil. This is incorrect. EMLA (note all caps)is a topical cream produced by Astrazeneca. It contains a nonionic surfactant, polyethoxylated, hydrogenated castor oil, as a non-medicinal ingredient.[4]. I would like to delete the sentence about "Emla" cream rather than correct the content and reference since it is just another example of a derivative of castor oil used as a minor (from an activity point of view) component.Silverchemist 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You've got the depth of knowledge to address these items; I say, go for it! -- Terry Carroll 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agricultural Materials Act of 1984

I'm deleting the reference to the Agricultural Materials Act of 1984. It's incorrect. The cite relied on for this -- http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2-380.html -- reads as follows:

Castor oil is classed as a strategic material critical to our national defense by the Agricultural Materials Act P.L. 98-284 passed by Congress in 1984.

The author cited probably meant the "Critical Agricultural Materials Act," Pub. L. 98-284, May 16, 1984. I have a copy of this statute in front of me. It's only five pages long, and there is no mention whatsoever of castor oil. -- Terry Carroll 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Terry, thank you. Too many of the references in this article had only a minor section of (sometimes) relevant information. I picked out some of them, but there are obviously still dubious references here. Thanks for your work on the Medical Uses section. I wonder if it necessary to have so many examples of drugs which use castor oil derivatives in their formulation? Do you think we should pare the list down so that readers get the idea without getting bogged down in detail?Silverchemist 05:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
A pared-down list is probably a good idea. I just didn't like the big glob of undifferentiated words that this paragraph used to be. This is not an area where I'm particularly competent, so I limited myself to mostly reformatting, adding an explanatory phrase or two where it was easily and uncontroversially found from a link. This also made the couple items that had no support stand out, so I marked them as cite-needed. -- Terry Carroll 06:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture

Is there room for a section Castor oil in popular culture? My kids were watching Mary Poppins (film), and the children sing, among the requirements for a new babysitter, that she should not give them Castor oil :-)))))) Albmont 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Efficacy Citations

Was the point in returning the citations about the HIT lesions treated with a topical product in order to have an online link, in order to show that it was efficaious, or something else entirely that I shouldn't assume? If we need an online link an article with the results of a clinical trial, rather than a case study might make its use sound more conclusive. Also the product information from the manufacturerer is helpful in clearly stating that castor oil is an active ingredient and the use and could replace both citations. (http://www.healthpoint.com/divisions/tm/prodXenaderm.cfm) -- Jwit 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no ulterior motive in adding the reference back in. It was an appropriate reference to a good source. I changed the format for the reference you added so that it now contains the link to the manufacturers website. I don't see any porblem with extra references as long as they are valid. Silverchemist 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)