Jump to content

Talk:Peppermint

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

Untitled

[edit]

In the photo, which plant is which? Steven G. Johnson

I don't know about Corsican mint, but it seems to me that neither plant is peppermint. Imc 09:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, it isn't Peppermint; I'm replacing it with another pic from commons - MPF 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chenniechen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor wording

[edit]

"Peppermint oil is also an all-natural way to deter ants from being inside and outside the home" .. which means they are nowhere? Wording should be clarified to "inside or around". Also, peppermint oil can be made synthetically, so the moniker "all-natural" is not necessarily meaningful. Also, it sounds like an advertisement or endorsement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.26.244 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raises Body Temperature?

[edit]

I've noticed repeatedly that combining mint tea with black tea causes my body temperature to rise. I can feel it in my scalp. Not so without the mint. Any explanation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B01C:5B77:2D31:DD59:E88C:A29F (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sterile?

[edit]

The article says "Peppermint (Mentha × piperita) is a (usually) sterile hybrid mint, a cross between Watermint (Mentha aquatica) and Spearmint (Mentha spicata)." (which is new to me, but seems plausible) and later "The wild form of the plant is less suitable for this purpose, with cultivated plants having been selected for more and better oil content."

Selection normally occurs through sexual reproduction. If it's sterile, how can plants be "selected"? --Singkong2005 05:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cross selected specimens of M. aquatica and M. spicata, and look whether the obtained hybrid is better suited to your purpose than those produced in former crossings. Taragüí @ 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal Properties

[edit]

I always eat peppermints candies when i have a headache and it normally works.

I was wondering if anyone knew to why that is. Does peppermint have some kind of effect to help get rid of headaches?

Find a credible source and site it. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. Stovetopcookies 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too User:Annonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.140.133 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience

[edit]

The article cited in this section says that the AROMA of peppermint oil enhances alertness. It says nothing about the CONSUMPTION of peppermint oil enhancing memory, nor about quote professors giving it to students. This section is misleading; I would recommend removing it, or altering it significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.106.185 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I've modified what the article says to more accurately reflect what's in the cite. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the use of the word "can" somewhat unfitting for an encyclopedia. Saying professors "can" use the aroma of peppermint to aid student's memories seems very spurious and hypothetical. I have never heard of this practice ever actually occurring, if it does it should be cited, and merely mentioning that it is hypothetically possible is not fitting in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Furthermore, the article mentioned says nothing about professors using peppermint aroma to aid student's memories, and so the citation at the end of that sentence is misleading, assuming a reader does not actually read the cited article (not an unreasonable assumption, given the huge number of citations in this entry). Almost anything can happen, and if encyclopedias were to list everything that is hypothetically possible, individual entries would be excessively and cumbersomely long. Furthermore, it is not the business of an encyclopedia to tell people what to do, merely to record verified knowledge. I would recommend removing the bit that professors "can" use this to enhance memory of students, as it seems to detract from the scholarly and factual style I believe an encyclopedia should convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.99.192 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

should we add?

[edit]

that peppermint is a good pet name?

No, because that is an opinion. Wikipedia is a place for factual information. Stovetopcookies 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article called List of good pet names. When it's nominated for speedy deletion, argue that there is encyclopedic value to it (though I don't see how). When the Wikipedia community answers with a resounding "no" to your article idea, post a blog with all your ill feelings towards Wikipedia. You can start by defining for me what a "good" pet name is. I always felt that Lucifer was a better pet name. Do you mean a name for a pet, or do you mean a pet name?

Mint Uses

[edit]

"Drinking peppermint tea will help the body break down, metabolize, or otherwise purge inhaled dust and other pollutants, which goes a long way in staving off sinus congestion, sore throats, and other cold symptoms."

Does anybody have a source for this? I don't think this has been proven anywhere, at least not when I searched Pubmed and Google. I am thinking of removing or rewording this paragraph in order to emphasize that this is folk medicine. Any thoughts? —Effika 22:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and removed the following: "Peppermint tea is an excellent elixir during winter months. As the days grow colder and shorter, people living away from the equator tend to spend more and more time indoors, often with less-than-perfect atmospheric conditons. See also dust. Drinking peppermint tea will help the body break down, metabolize, or otherwise purge inhaled dust and other pollutants, which goes a long way in staving off sinus congestion, sore throats, and other cold symptoms." —Effika 23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how can i get rid of it in my garden

Dump salt on your garden. Ignite the garden. Eat it. Make tea out of it. Sniff it. Put it in hot chocolate. Extract the oil from it and use it for aromatherapy. Sell it on eBay... -- 12.116.162.162 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This article references its central medical claim (about IBS) but I think there are other un-referenced statements throughout it. I wonder if there are specific references that can be added?

Here is an example statement that might benefit from a reference. "Peppermint is generally regarded as 'the world's oldest medicine', with archeological evidence placing its use at least as far back as ten thousand years ago."

I like this article and would appreciate it if someone could expand the section about claims of medicinal properties. Specifically have there been studies about those claims, and what conclusions were (or weren't) reached?

Thanks!! Erik 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My wife has suffered from Vertigo for years now. We have tried everything or so we thought. We research it all the time and recently we read online that taking 3 drops of peppermint oil will relieve the symptoms. Crazy at it sounds my wife tried it and the results were immediate. She said she felt like she was 98% cured. So far, the symptoms have not returned.

Willamette Valley

[edit]

Removing "Also, the Willamette Valley in Oregon produces the highest quality oil in the entire world." Aborlan 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR

[edit]

Enough already people. At this point, it doesn't matter which version of english is on the page (since peppermint is neither purely English or American). Just let it be (so long as it's consistent). Really, this is getting to be a case of Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Thanks. --Bfigura (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this page has gone through a number of spelling reversions. My last edit has reverted it to UK English which is the spelling that the majority of the article had been written in originally. Clear consistency is what is important and what it lacked, but there is also no reason for its piecemeal changing to US English. That is what WP:ENGVAR states. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dug through the history enough, but that seems reasonable to me (unless someone has diffs that assert otherwise). Now that the article is consistent, I don't think there's any reason to change it again (aside from reverting people who are attempting to change it piecemeal). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the first major contributor (Gurps npc) at 17:43, December 2, 2005, the article used American English. Up to that point it was consistently intermixed. Later it was re-intermixed until I fixed it (except for fibre which was also spelled fiber at some point) per WP:ENGVAR last May. To wholesale revert it now is a violation of WP:ENGVAR(Retaining the existing variety). VMS Mosaic 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping in here as an admin – the species is native to Britain [1], but not native to the USA, so the regional spelling guidelines do apply. This takes precedence over first user, so the page should use BrE. - MPF 09:36, 15 October 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) 11:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A topic of .....

[edit]

Chewing gum has been added based on the following
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=chewing+gum+peppermint&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1

to control the risks of its produts--222.64.30.89 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could wiki admin please enable the auto numbering system for the article sections....

[edit]

As the numbers of each section may changes with the times of its editing--222.67.205.85 (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please verify the correctness of the claim in the section of 7.0...

[edit]

for the standard of ISO 676:1995. In addition to that, please also bing the info from the standard to this article, which are critical and missing, such as the identifier if available.--222.67.205.85 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Ref. 4...???

[edit]

As the nomenclature system in Ref. 4 could be obsoleted due to the publishing of ISO 676 --222.67.205.85 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now ISO has published...

[edit]

the amendment of ISO 676:1995/Cor 1:1997 after 8 June, 2009, but where are the critical reviews of both the docs???

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=4844

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+676&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.27.219 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=botanical+nomenclature+spice&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.27.219 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+botanical+nomenclature+condiment&btnG=Search --222.64.27.219 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure we need a critical review [here] of a standard on botanical nomenclature, and the 3 scholar google links find nothing now. - Rod57 (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also any critical review of .....

[edit]

ISO 5563 ??? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+5563&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.23.186 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and

ISO 856 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+856&btnG=Search --222.64.23.186 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should news article be added to this encyc article?

[edit]

http://www.gogreenstreet.com/organic-peppermint-oil-school-suspension/ Skaizun (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not this one, IMO. It says nothing about peppermint. - Rod57 (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peppermint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Self-link loop detected? No tool for such bullshit? But people write tools for detecting and correcting "comprised". Madness, thy name is Wikipedia. --jae (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is "rectified oil of peppermint?"

[edit]
reference desk question Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some products--mainly dentrifices--are manufactured with an ingredient that in some English-speaking countries is listed as "rectified oil of peppermint" or even "double rectified oil of peppermint." Apparently it is used because no other flavorings can cover the taste of the soaps and detergents used to make toothpaste.

I know that in the world of organic chemistry, a rectified substance is one in which only a single enantiomer exists--that is, there are two or more possible isomeric forms in which a particular nexus within the molecule has taken one of two possible mirror-image forms, but the material has been processed or purified so that only one single isomer is present, at least within the constraints of the claimed degree of purity. This is done for various reasons. Perhaps, of the many possible forms of a complex molecule, only one has the desired effect or use (common in the pharmaceutical/biochemical fields) and removing the non-useful ones has the effect of making the substance being prepared more potent. Rectification may be done by, for example, recrystallization from solution and sorting the solid crystals by their shapes, or by the rotation of the plane of polarization they cause to polarized light shining through them (which varies with different enantiomers).

But, as far as I am able to determine, oil of peppermint isn't a single pure compound. It's a mulligan stew of chemicals; according to https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6850741#section=Top it is a mixture of plant terpenoids and at least six different furans, esters, and related compounds are present. I have found claims online that "rectification" is defined by some manufacturers as a synonym for "fractional distillation," but optically active isomers don't generally differ by very much in terms of boiling point, not sufficiently to make this a useful method of separating them, and the point would seem to be moot when we're talking about a mixture of half a dozen different compounds, not a pure compound.

So, as far as I am able to determine, "rectified peppermint oil" is oil of peppermint that has undergone some sort of purification process but it isn't clear exactly what has been done. Can anyone shed some light on this? It might also be appropriate to add to the article--I leave it to people more knowledgeable than I--that flavorings used in toothpaste are one of the biggest industrial uses for substances derived from the peppermint plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:8000:7625:0:0:0:F8FD (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask at Help:Reference desk Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peppermint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mint 2014-06-01 00-53.jpg

[edit]

It's a mug's game to try to ID mints from a distant picture, but I don't think the photo at right, File:Mint 2014-06-01 00-53.jpg, is actually peppermint. To me it looks more like Spearmint. More to the point though, the uploader did not specify what species or variety it was, so there's not much basis for us to be making an assumption one way or the other. I would seek consensus to remove this image, or replace it with one with a definite identification from commons. Sauzer (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peppermint&oldid=1194057354"