Talk:Leukoderma
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Leukoderma.
|
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | The contents of the Leukoderma page were merged into Vitiligo on 9 June 2017 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Article categorization
This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an article about the condition vitiligo. It ought to be merged with that article to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Many problems with the article
There are many problems with claims in the article, which need to be addressed or removed. First, leukoderma (or leucoderma) is not recognized as a medical condition in the West; the correct term is vitiligo, for which a scholarly article already exists. Second, under the heading "Treatment", it states "The bael fruit is traditionally used to treat this condition." "Traditional" to whom? The bael fruit (Aegle marmelos) is common only to India, so it's extremely unlikely to be a "traditional treatment" in places far removed from India, despite sufferers from vitiligo being broadly dispersed throughout the world. It goes on to say "Excessive mental worry, presence of parasites in alimentary canal and mostly improper hygiene too may also be considered to be one of the causes according to Ayurveda." The current scientific consensus is that Ayurveda is not recognized as an effective medical practice, so there's no reason to be citing it in a wiki, except within the context of the perspective of folk medicine. Finally, under the heading "Bible", it claims "Leukoderma is mentioned in Leviticus 13:39 which states, 'the priest shall look, and if the spots on the skin of the body are of a dull white, it is leukoderma that has broken out in the skin; he is clean.'" This is utter nonsense. The Book of Leviticus, in the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew. "Leukoderma" is a Latin term, a language that didn't exist at the time Leviticus was written. Furthermore, there is not a single translation of Leviticus that renders the word "Leukoderma"; the King James Version merely says "Then the priest shall look: and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be darkish white; it is a freckled spot that groweth in the skin; he is clean." While this may be referring to a condition similar to vitiligo, the presence of "leukoderma" in the cited text is clearly a modern interpolation. I would argue that this article should be merged with the one on vitiligo and the other nonsense about Ayurveda be removed. Bricology (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
