Talk:Chicory

There was no link to a corresponding Hebrew article. Turns out there is a Hebrew article for Chicorium but not for (Common) Chicory. When I tried to add a Wikidata interlink, I got an error "The link hewiki:עולש (צמח) is already used by item Q158514. You may remove it from Q158514 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." I ended up adding a custom language link to this English Chicory article. I wouldn't merge the items because Chicorium is not identical to Common Chicory. I suspect the right thing to do would be to create a Hebrew stub for Common Chicory, but I wasn't able to find Wiki policy on the matter. Personally, I'm against pointless stubs that just add Wiki page for no other purpose at this point. Or would a Hebrew redirect entry be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binba (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's a known issue, albeit a rather complex and unresolved one: [] A bit over my head, if the correct solution is a stub (which I have arguments against), redirect (that needs temporary disabling of Wikidata autoparsing?), and a Wikidata part-of entry (which is a bit over my head). Binba (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously root chicory has not been used as a coffee subtitute since "The Middle Ages," which refers to Europe from around 800-1200 CE, and coffee wasn't introduced to Europe until well after that. Anyone happen to have a source handy for when/where this vegetable began getting mixed into coffee?L Glidewell 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea, but it wasn't since the Middle Ages. Changed the wording on the article page to something much more ambiguous, "a long time." Thanks for catching this, feel free to edit out pure nonsense yourself in articles. KP Botany 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob Evans coffee has chicory in it!!!

Oh yes, Cafe Du Monde coffee has chicory, apparantly it is a New Orleans tradition. This will need to be added. Enviropearson (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the term "weed" truly applicable to chicory? It does, indeed, have value, including aesthetic as well as culinary (and some might say medicinal but I am not knowledgeable enough about this to state for certain). Also, I can't say that I have ever seen chicory that grows on cultivated ground to the exclusion or injury of a desired crop. If anything, they tend to grow on roadsides or recently cleared, barren, gravely land where few other plants would grow.

Is there not a better term to use in the sentence that is referring to how it has become a common roadside "weed" in America? How about just "plant?"

weed1 –noun 1. a valueless plant growing wild, esp. one that grows on cultivated ground to the exclusion or injury of the desired crop. 2. any undesirable or troublesome plant, esp. one that grows profusely where it is not wanted: The vacant lot was covered with weeds. 3. Informal. a cigarette or cigar. 4. Slang. a marijuana cigarette. 5. a thin, ungainly person or animal. 6. a wretched or useless animal, esp. a horse unfit for racing or breeding purposes.

"weed." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 27 Jul. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weed>.

Kestrelinden 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, many people do not know Chicory as an edible plant so to some people it is an undesirable or valueless 'weed'; however, to those who practice Wild Crafting this plant, like many others, is an alternative to salad greens purchased from the store. http://www.wildcrafting.net/

At the health food stores I have mentioned that chicory can be harvested from fields and vacant lots and people have asked the same question more often than not "You mean it is the same as the chicory they sell here?"... the others frequently state "I had not thought of that."

Arrianarose (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Arrianarose

Free the weed! But seriously, though, the term weed seems appropriate in as much as popular culture views rangy roadside plants as weeds. Certainly the roadside variety is not cultivated, but free ranging. Once you start deciding this plant or that plant is really not a weed because it can always be found to have culinary or medicinal use somewhere, then that would apply to every plant species, and there would be no such thing as a weed anymore. Yet, that is a clever trick of semantics, when in fact perfectly valued and useful plants are considered weeds. giggle 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

I've added a fact tag and deleted the mention of children. I'm wary of uncited information about home remedies for children. Kroyw 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead....

Confirmed in several books, including REaders Digest Encylopedia on Herbs...

"Ancient roman therapy for liver problems..."

Really works !!!!

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you already have a reference to it.

Perhaps it can be more stated ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its important to track this down. I couldn/t find anything in Pubmed. Are there CDC reports in New Orleans where the blend is usedCayte (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In Margaret Grieve's A Modern Herbal, 1931 she says she heard chicory could cause retinal daamage. We need to fnd out if this is reliable or is an urban legend.Cayte (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Chicory, Coffee, and Cannabis ALL cause retinal damage by interering with synthesis of various pigments used in cone cells for COLOR vision. They also affect rod cells as well. They cause dimming of vision. It is well documented. People in ancent times believed chicory made you "Strong and healthy" -- mostly due to eliminating parasites and the affect on health. In modern times, we know differently now, and why chicory improved health 2000 years ago -- no worms ... anything toxic to internal parasites is also toxic to YOU and other humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.189.244 (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cayte is quite right, we do need a source. I'm afraid "it is well documented" is not good enough – we need modern, scientific papers or textbooks. Older sources are too likely to be repeating folklore (including medical folklore).

I've been unable to find any such papers. Searches on "Cichorium toxicity" and "Chicory toxicity" both come up with nothing scientific. The following poisonous plant databases do not list any effects on sight: US Food and Drug Administration Poisonous Plant Database, Cornell University Poisonous Plants Informational Database, Provet poisonous plants database.

At present I'm inclined to the view that it's unsubstantiated folklore and should be removed from the article. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been provided with two sources -- one from Greg Tilford and another from Cayte herself. The fact here is we have several folks who want to "wikiality" away something which has been documented since 1931 and exists in a lot of published sources. I advise my patients to avoid chicory, coffee, and cannabis is they are over 50 -- it HARMS your vision. It does not matter if it is removed or not -- Wikipedia -- and the internet in general is viewed by the medical community as an unreliable reference in any event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.189.244 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to remove it. We can include it but clarify that the claim is based on traditional lore and there is little to no confirming evidence in modern scientific literature. All I found was a twenty eight day toxicology study on rats. Not long term. It could be true but to my knowledge no one has funded an epidemiological study of New Orleans coffee/chicory drinkers and tested their vision over time. Its hard to know what to make of it when a dead person reports what another dead person told her and then it gets propogated from book to book.Cayte (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cayte's source is a 1931 herbal, so certainly not a scientific source. I also remain unconvinced by Tilford – is he repeating what "everyone knows", or is he using a genuine scientific source? Does he give a reference for the information? To me the evidence produced so far indicates that this story is folklore, not something supported by scientific studies. It may well be true that chicory harms sight (and it's sensible to be cautious), but we don't yet have encyclopaedic evidence that it does.

If WP does have a reputation in the medical community for unreliability it is not because it uses reliable sources, but because sometimes it does not!

Cayte's suggestion is however a wise one – keep it in, but make it clear where the information comes from. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Chicory also grows in Central America, where the green leaves are sold and used as an ingredience in soups and stews. (Unsigned comment by User:190.212.7.136, 02:00, 15 July 2008)

I have done my best to tidy up this page and the endive page separating them according to species (scientific definition) rather than their common names. A lot of websites get the species wrong. It would be good to have some pictures of the different types on both endive and chicory pages. It might also be worth creating a separate page for belgian endive as there already is for radiccioHalon8 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What blows my mind is that the article says that endive and chicory are often confused, and then turns around and discusses Belgian endive. 76.180.208.103 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Belgian "endive" is indeed part of the common chicory species (Cichorium intybus), not the endive (Cichorium endivia) – which itself can be called chicory. Confused indeed, and confusing too... Richard New Forest (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that the lettucy-looking plants called chicory that we buy in the grocery store is the same species as the the woody stemmed, blue flowered plant that grows on roadsides? That's amazing. And Belgian endive is in the same genus? giggle 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

Yes it is. Selective breeding can do amazing things, and there is a similar amount of difference between the domesticated and wild types of, say, carrot, parsnip, cabbage, beetroot, swede, lettuce, apple, plum, etc, etc. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Chicory Root: An ancient roman therapy for liver problems, similar to dandelion root, same family.

Noted this in a readers digest source years ago, verified through incident research.

Suggest we find a source for this.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Production figures are for "Lettuce and chicory". While the FAO may have a good reason for lumping these two vegetables in their production figures, I think it's safe to assume that the lettuce accounts for the vast majority of the tonnage given. As such, it's pretty misleading to have these figures on this page. I'm inclined to delete the production section altogether, and will probably do so next time I visit this page (in the absence of any arguments against doing so). It would be nice to see production figures for chicory alone, but giving figures combined with lettuce is pretty useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a logical argument to me. Richard New Forest (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the production section. If anybody has statistics for global production of chicory alone (not chicory+lettuce), please include them.192.104.39.2 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt the accuracy of the history section:

Chicory is an ingredient in typical Roman recipes, generally fried with garlic and red pepper, with its bitter and spicy taste, often together with meat or potatoes. FAO reports that in 2005, China and the USA were the top producers of lettuce and chicory.[citation needed]

Since Red Peppers Were brought over to Europe from Central America and did not exist in Europe before Columbus, that incorrect fact calls the history section in to question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.82.219 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Ancient Rome. The area around Rome, Italy. They probably call it Puntarelle. See also Endive, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucina_romana http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntarelle I don't know whether "red pepper" refers to the hot pepper or bell pepper, but both are indeed from the Americas. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

'Without chicoree' is advertised in The Times of March 1832. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 August 2009

The statement I removed was:

Since then, new strains have been created, giving root chicory an inulin content comparable to that of sugar beet (around 600 dt/ha).

This was originally introduced 16 January 2006 by 62.203.180.25 as:

Up to this time new breeding lines were created confering to the root chicory similar yield like the sugar beet (around 600 dt/ha).

It was changed to its current form 25 January 2006 by 67.22.38.83.

Neither version of the statement is sourced. For comparison, see Table 4 on p. 297 of Polysaccharides and Polyamides in the Food Industry. 600 dt/ha = 60 tonnes per hectare is a fairly high yield for the unprocessed crop, but an order of magnitude too high for the inulin content. Cstaffa (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Chicory is described in the article as an "appetite stimulant", suggesting that it increases appetite. But the word "stimulant" links to the article about stimulant drugs, which are appetite suppressants. This is nonsense and needs clarification. If someone can't explain this better in the article in a few days, I plan to remove the entire reference to "appetite stimulant". 75.178.178.212 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)