This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chamomile article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ReemFaraj.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The two images on this page are not helpful: this is a disambiguation page, but the images are labeled only with the ambiguous name.
I'd fix this myself but I don't know what the correct labels are (guessing German chamomile but I'd hate to inject a mistake).— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.115.25.249 (
talk •
contribs) 12:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Which variety is most commonly the source of the chamomile tea you'd buy in a store? Or are the differences between the German and Roman varieties inconsequential as far as tea is concerned?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.232.125 ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What are the properties and effects of this, as an oil, on the various body systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.14.163 ( talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In latin america, Chamomile (Manzinilla) is believed by many to cure ailments ranging from diaper rash to hangnails to HIV. Or at least thats what they'd have you think.... 70.197.110.116 ( talk) 01:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to chime in and state that, brewed properly, is very sweet, not bitter. Any tea that is brewed improperly will taste bad. Someone should change that. 66.188.254.197 ( talk) 06:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Information that perhaps should be incorporated into this article: http://nccih.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2010_may/chamomileanxiety.htm - "Study Shows Chamomile Capsules Ease Anxiety Symptoms" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/19593179 - "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder." ClovisPt ( talk) 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious; is this section supposed to even pretend to be neutral? There could at least be a listing of what its' positive characteristics are supposed to be, even if it is acknowledged that research hasn't been done on all of them. Seriously; what sort of blatantly pro-Establishment shills write these articles?
Petrus4 ( talk) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's main use is that it is a smooth muscle relaxant as well as having mild antiseptic properties, therefore it has uses in resolving digestion issues. This is common knowledge, however this article has been raped by the usual Wikipedia trolls and therefore no longer contains any useful information.
-- 89.212.75.6 ( talk) 11:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This article reads like an ad for phony alternative herb therapies. Seriously; what sort of foolish hippie quack or Chinese herb witch doctor writes these articles?
It's a plant. Doesn't it have some objective properties? Where does it grow naturally? What temperature does it require? What light levels? Is it annual? Perennial? Does it bloom? When? What kind of soil does it thrive in? I'm not even a botanist and I can imagine these simple questions. Instead I get a bunch of hoodoo about alleged and unproven mood altering properties.
98.167.164.240 ( talk) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! I came here looking for information on identifying the plant and it's growing range. Only found weak claims of it's medicinal value. 47.183.228.218 ( talk) 10:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I checked the sources that give the following claims:
It is known to reduce stress. [1]
Chamomile is also useful as an antidiuretic [2].
They certainly don't pass as reliable medical sources, as they appear to be advocacy pieces/articles from questionable organizations/web sites which contain claims and speculation without citing reliable medical sources (studies, reviews) and therefore impossible to verify. I will look for reliable sources supporting (or refuting) the claims regarding stress reduction and alledged antidiuretic effects and remove the sentences. I would also like to expand or entirely rewrite (as it's really messy, incomplete, missing prose) the section 'Medicinal use' and the lede, but I'm not accustomed with the manual of style for medical articles yet. Any suggestions how to improve the article? -- Semilanceata ( talk) 06:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
References
Even though the article describes several species, and notably, species in different genera, the article defaults to simply 'Chamomile' even though it is clear that there are many distinct plant types. Can contributors please elaborate which species are used for what purposes and what differences there are between them, if any, and most importantly define which species are being referred to. This is particularly important when citing research, and may even clear up some issues described above. This is exactly why the vernacular or common names is not sufficient - please help to improve this article by simply being precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.246.181 ( talk) 07:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Anthemis nobilis is the classical Latin and scientific name. The word chamomile is directly from Greek as milo is not the Latin name for apple. It is later medievil Latin that adopts / copies the Greek which is an untranslated directly imitated word. "By way of Latin" is an intellectually fraudulent way of repeatedly denying credit to something that has already been documented as completely Greek. e.g. Venus de Milo ; not a Venus and not Roman. Latin only had 20,000 until the end of the ancient period (Justinian), assertions that Greek must defer is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.135 ( talk) 07:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The are couple problems still with the added medical claims. All the source says about smooth muscle spasms is "Chamomile is believed to be helpful in reducing smooth muscle spasms". That's not a claim of efficacy, but the article now says "is helpful in reducing smooth muscle spasms". The article also has "lowered gastric acidity as effectively as a commercial antacid", while the source is referring to "a commercial preparation (STW5, Iberogast), containing the extracts of bitter candy tuft, lemon balm leaf, chamomile flower, caraway fruit, peppermint leaf, liquorice root, Angelica root, milk thistle fruit and greater celandine herb" as having antacid effects. There's no telling how much of the antacid effect is due to chamomile. Then we've got the source with "Chamomile is often used to treat mild skin irritations, including sunburn, rashes, sores and even eye inflammations (62–65) but its value in treating these conditions has not been shown with evidence-based research." That's repeated in the article without the bit about lack of research demonstrating value. While there's nothing technically false about "Chamomile is often used...", that's a pretty dodgy construction that won't fly under WP:MEDRS (and believe me, I am sympathetic in some cases to wanting to make claims of use that aren't accompanied by claims of efficacy; I shouldn't have to find a WP:MEDRS compliant source to claim that wormwood is so named because it was used as a vermifuge) Plantdrew ( talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
also i would like to say, as someone who take blood thinners, and the medication i take says nothing about avoiding chamomile tea. and i happen to drink this tea everyday and have not had an affect on my health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.142.230 ( talk) 06:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Where are these plants native? What types of climate do they prefer? Etc. Please add information about these plants to this article.- 73.61.15.193 ( talk) 03:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kevingweinberg disputes the statement of inadequate clinical evidence for using chamomile as an anti-disease therapy or to promote health. The two general sources used - MedlinePlus and NCCIH - and one other by Drugs.com state that there is insufficient evidence for its use in treating diseases or promoting health, mainly because high-quality clinical research is difficult to design, finance, and conduct on herbal products like chamomile, and so have not been done, especially in rigorous randomized controlled trials. A PubMed search for reviews on clinical studies of chamomile yields no high-quality studies or convincing evidence that mainstream medicine uses chamomile for any purpose. Chamomile also has potential for adverse interactions with prescribed drugs, shown here. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)/
The Tea section says using it as a tea would have no medical effects. But the section on drug interactions claims that it can interfere with certain drugs.
The article barely mentions the most common uses of chamomile, as a relaxing tea. It should be possible for Wikipedia to describe herbal products and how they are actually used and marketed in the world, even on a planet where the medical world insists on double-blind randomized clinical trials. When the medical sources say there is "not enough evidence" (i.e. nobody has done studies to their standards) then that is not a reason to wipe out all mentions of traditional herbal uses (such as taking chamomile tea before going to bed, to aid sleep). A lack of evidence is not the same as proof of irrelevance. I would argue that if there are reputable medical sources that say that it DOES NOTHING, then eliminating claims from extremely common sources that it does something would make sense under WP:MEDRS. But if there are no reputable medical sources that say that it DOES NOTHING, then eliminating claims from extremely common sources that it does something, would put undue weight on the medical sources that say there is not enough evidence. Gnuish ( talk) 00:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Germany chamomile is not actually chamomile soo why is it here? 2A04:241E:202:6900:919C:2172:D448:71C9 ( talk) 23:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Jamplevia ( talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
References
That's an unusable source which likely reflects findings from in vitro or other lab research, and therefore is too preliminary to mention in an encyclopedia. Any of those effects would have to be confirmed by a WP:MEDRS review (which doesn't exist). Zefr ( talk) 20:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I actually came here to use Wikipedia as a starting point for looking into whether chamomile tea actually did anything sleep-related, but this article has some really weird inherent contradictions that led to me making an account instead!
The lead talks about "insufficient evidence", the tea section says "may improve sleep quality", and the research section says "There is no high-quality clinical evidence that it is useful for treating insomnia or any disease" - it reads rather like the article is arguing with itself. I did a little looking around of my own and found this meta review:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31006899/
Before making my own edit, since I've basically never touched Wikipedia, I thought I'd post here in case someone else had thoughts about how to bring the article into harmony with itself. If it were up to me I might trim the research section entirely and just put in the lead:
"Chamomile is widely believed to have a variety of medicinal effects; most of these have insufficient supporting evidence, but there is some evidence that consuming it in food or drink can improve sleep quality and mitigate generalized anxiety disorder."
Using the study that I linked above as the relevant cite. I did some digging on Phytotherapy Research, the journal this was published in; near as I can tell it seems like a perfectly reasonable publication.
Please let me know what you think. Vylraz ( talk) 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chamomile article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ReemFaraj.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The two images on this page are not helpful: this is a disambiguation page, but the images are labeled only with the ambiguous name.
I'd fix this myself but I don't know what the correct labels are (guessing German chamomile but I'd hate to inject a mistake).— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.115.25.249 (
talk •
contribs) 12:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Which variety is most commonly the source of the chamomile tea you'd buy in a store? Or are the differences between the German and Roman varieties inconsequential as far as tea is concerned?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.232.125 ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What are the properties and effects of this, as an oil, on the various body systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.14.163 ( talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In latin america, Chamomile (Manzinilla) is believed by many to cure ailments ranging from diaper rash to hangnails to HIV. Or at least thats what they'd have you think.... 70.197.110.116 ( talk) 01:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to chime in and state that, brewed properly, is very sweet, not bitter. Any tea that is brewed improperly will taste bad. Someone should change that. 66.188.254.197 ( talk) 06:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Information that perhaps should be incorporated into this article: http://nccih.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2010_may/chamomileanxiety.htm - "Study Shows Chamomile Capsules Ease Anxiety Symptoms" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/19593179 - "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder." ClovisPt ( talk) 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious; is this section supposed to even pretend to be neutral? There could at least be a listing of what its' positive characteristics are supposed to be, even if it is acknowledged that research hasn't been done on all of them. Seriously; what sort of blatantly pro-Establishment shills write these articles?
Petrus4 ( talk) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's main use is that it is a smooth muscle relaxant as well as having mild antiseptic properties, therefore it has uses in resolving digestion issues. This is common knowledge, however this article has been raped by the usual Wikipedia trolls and therefore no longer contains any useful information.
-- 89.212.75.6 ( talk) 11:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This article reads like an ad for phony alternative herb therapies. Seriously; what sort of foolish hippie quack or Chinese herb witch doctor writes these articles?
It's a plant. Doesn't it have some objective properties? Where does it grow naturally? What temperature does it require? What light levels? Is it annual? Perennial? Does it bloom? When? What kind of soil does it thrive in? I'm not even a botanist and I can imagine these simple questions. Instead I get a bunch of hoodoo about alleged and unproven mood altering properties.
98.167.164.240 ( talk) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! I came here looking for information on identifying the plant and it's growing range. Only found weak claims of it's medicinal value. 47.183.228.218 ( talk) 10:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I checked the sources that give the following claims:
It is known to reduce stress. [1]
Chamomile is also useful as an antidiuretic [2].
They certainly don't pass as reliable medical sources, as they appear to be advocacy pieces/articles from questionable organizations/web sites which contain claims and speculation without citing reliable medical sources (studies, reviews) and therefore impossible to verify. I will look for reliable sources supporting (or refuting) the claims regarding stress reduction and alledged antidiuretic effects and remove the sentences. I would also like to expand or entirely rewrite (as it's really messy, incomplete, missing prose) the section 'Medicinal use' and the lede, but I'm not accustomed with the manual of style for medical articles yet. Any suggestions how to improve the article? -- Semilanceata ( talk) 06:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
References
Even though the article describes several species, and notably, species in different genera, the article defaults to simply 'Chamomile' even though it is clear that there are many distinct plant types. Can contributors please elaborate which species are used for what purposes and what differences there are between them, if any, and most importantly define which species are being referred to. This is particularly important when citing research, and may even clear up some issues described above. This is exactly why the vernacular or common names is not sufficient - please help to improve this article by simply being precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.246.181 ( talk) 07:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Anthemis nobilis is the classical Latin and scientific name. The word chamomile is directly from Greek as milo is not the Latin name for apple. It is later medievil Latin that adopts / copies the Greek which is an untranslated directly imitated word. "By way of Latin" is an intellectually fraudulent way of repeatedly denying credit to something that has already been documented as completely Greek. e.g. Venus de Milo ; not a Venus and not Roman. Latin only had 20,000 until the end of the ancient period (Justinian), assertions that Greek must defer is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.135 ( talk) 07:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The are couple problems still with the added medical claims. All the source says about smooth muscle spasms is "Chamomile is believed to be helpful in reducing smooth muscle spasms". That's not a claim of efficacy, but the article now says "is helpful in reducing smooth muscle spasms". The article also has "lowered gastric acidity as effectively as a commercial antacid", while the source is referring to "a commercial preparation (STW5, Iberogast), containing the extracts of bitter candy tuft, lemon balm leaf, chamomile flower, caraway fruit, peppermint leaf, liquorice root, Angelica root, milk thistle fruit and greater celandine herb" as having antacid effects. There's no telling how much of the antacid effect is due to chamomile. Then we've got the source with "Chamomile is often used to treat mild skin irritations, including sunburn, rashes, sores and even eye inflammations (62–65) but its value in treating these conditions has not been shown with evidence-based research." That's repeated in the article without the bit about lack of research demonstrating value. While there's nothing technically false about "Chamomile is often used...", that's a pretty dodgy construction that won't fly under WP:MEDRS (and believe me, I am sympathetic in some cases to wanting to make claims of use that aren't accompanied by claims of efficacy; I shouldn't have to find a WP:MEDRS compliant source to claim that wormwood is so named because it was used as a vermifuge) Plantdrew ( talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
also i would like to say, as someone who take blood thinners, and the medication i take says nothing about avoiding chamomile tea. and i happen to drink this tea everyday and have not had an affect on my health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.142.230 ( talk) 06:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Where are these plants native? What types of climate do they prefer? Etc. Please add information about these plants to this article.- 73.61.15.193 ( talk) 03:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kevingweinberg disputes the statement of inadequate clinical evidence for using chamomile as an anti-disease therapy or to promote health. The two general sources used - MedlinePlus and NCCIH - and one other by Drugs.com state that there is insufficient evidence for its use in treating diseases or promoting health, mainly because high-quality clinical research is difficult to design, finance, and conduct on herbal products like chamomile, and so have not been done, especially in rigorous randomized controlled trials. A PubMed search for reviews on clinical studies of chamomile yields no high-quality studies or convincing evidence that mainstream medicine uses chamomile for any purpose. Chamomile also has potential for adverse interactions with prescribed drugs, shown here. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)/
The Tea section says using it as a tea would have no medical effects. But the section on drug interactions claims that it can interfere with certain drugs.
The article barely mentions the most common uses of chamomile, as a relaxing tea. It should be possible for Wikipedia to describe herbal products and how they are actually used and marketed in the world, even on a planet where the medical world insists on double-blind randomized clinical trials. When the medical sources say there is "not enough evidence" (i.e. nobody has done studies to their standards) then that is not a reason to wipe out all mentions of traditional herbal uses (such as taking chamomile tea before going to bed, to aid sleep). A lack of evidence is not the same as proof of irrelevance. I would argue that if there are reputable medical sources that say that it DOES NOTHING, then eliminating claims from extremely common sources that it does something would make sense under WP:MEDRS. But if there are no reputable medical sources that say that it DOES NOTHING, then eliminating claims from extremely common sources that it does something, would put undue weight on the medical sources that say there is not enough evidence. Gnuish ( talk) 00:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Germany chamomile is not actually chamomile soo why is it here? 2A04:241E:202:6900:919C:2172:D448:71C9 ( talk) 23:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Jamplevia ( talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
References
That's an unusable source which likely reflects findings from in vitro or other lab research, and therefore is too preliminary to mention in an encyclopedia. Any of those effects would have to be confirmed by a WP:MEDRS review (which doesn't exist). Zefr ( talk) 20:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I actually came here to use Wikipedia as a starting point for looking into whether chamomile tea actually did anything sleep-related, but this article has some really weird inherent contradictions that led to me making an account instead!
The lead talks about "insufficient evidence", the tea section says "may improve sleep quality", and the research section says "There is no high-quality clinical evidence that it is useful for treating insomnia or any disease" - it reads rather like the article is arguing with itself. I did a little looking around of my own and found this meta review:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31006899/
Before making my own edit, since I've basically never touched Wikipedia, I thought I'd post here in case someone else had thoughts about how to bring the article into harmony with itself. If it were up to me I might trim the research section entirely and just put in the lead:
"Chamomile is widely believed to have a variety of medicinal effects; most of these have insufficient supporting evidence, but there is some evidence that consuming it in food or drink can improve sleep quality and mitigate generalized anxiety disorder."
Using the study that I linked above as the relevant cite. I did some digging on Phytotherapy Research, the journal this was published in; near as I can tell it seems like a perfectly reasonable publication.
Please let me know what you think. Vylraz ( talk) 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)