This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 african mango. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink |project talk page]] -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend to rename the article Dika. I wanted to post my entry under Dika, but since Dika redirects here I made it here. The whole article is about Irvingia gabonensis only the listed species in the taxobox are not, that is why I would recommend to call it Dika.
Swiss0112358 ( talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
marcotting is "air layering" --> Marcotting -- Mannalem ( talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I recently added an edit under pharmacological uses for African Mango as follows: A recent study revealed that antioxidant activity of the fermented Mango leaves generally increased with increasing fermented extract concentration as did the fermented extracts' polyphenol and flavonoid contents.[5] The antioxidant properties of fermented mango leaf extracts suggest the fermented extracts may be useful in developing health food and fermentation-based beauty products. But now I see that the entire section has been deleted. Shall I add my edit under uses? Ashweig134 ( talk) 19:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I moved this discussion out of the article to here for 3 main reasons to better discuss among editors whether this section has merit: a) the overall research quality reviewed in the publication by Onakpoya et al. is conspicuously poor; b) the conclusions reached, whether showing efficacy for weight loss or not, are equivocal and doubtful about providing anything factually clear for readers of the article; and c) the journal in which the Onakoya paper was published is not a WP:MEDRS-quality source, and the suggestion that actual weight loss occurred (a "medical" statement) does not seem credible based on the weaknesses of the studies reviewed. Accordingly, including the section on clinical research hinting at evidence of weight loss efficacy gives WP:UNDUE significance to the publication and statements it includes, whether effective for weight control or not.
Following is the removed section and this is the Onakpoya source cited:
A review of clinical research on consuming dika for weight management identified three randomized clinical trials, all of which reported significant positive effect, however all three had irregularities in testing methods and reporting. The review concluded, "The results from available RCTs suggest that I. gabonensis supplementation causes significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference. However, the reporting of the methodology of the RCTs is poor and all the trials are of short duration. Until good quality trials demonstrating its efficacy are available, I. gabonensis cannot be recommended as a weight loss aid."
Let's review it here and invite other editors for opinions on WP:MEDRS quality. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This text and reference below were removed from the article for the following reasons: a) a study that concludes the RCTs had "irregularities in testing methods and reporting" means the studies were poorly done and their results are spurious and unreliable, i.e., not worth including in an encyclopedia as if they were factual; b) the journal in which the study was reported is a low-quality journal and not a WP:MEDRS quality source per this WP guideline. The Journal of Dietary Supplements has an impact factor of 1.05 (indicative of poor quality), far too low to be used as a medical source. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Disputed edit removed: A review of clinical research on consuming dika for weight management identified three randomized clinical trials, all of which reported significant positive effect, however all three had irregularities in testing methods and reporting. The review concluded, "The results from available RCTs suggest that I. gabonensis supplementation causes significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference. However, the reporting of the methodology of the RCTs is poor and all the trials are of short duration. Until good quality trials demonstrating its efficacy are available, I. gabonensis cannot be recommended as a weight loss aid. [1]
To add to this article: a photo of the fruits. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done - unfortunately, there are no pictures of fruits in Wikimedia Commons. Zefr ( talk) 14:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 african mango. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink |project talk page]] -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend to rename the article Dika. I wanted to post my entry under Dika, but since Dika redirects here I made it here. The whole article is about Irvingia gabonensis only the listed species in the taxobox are not, that is why I would recommend to call it Dika.
Swiss0112358 ( talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
marcotting is "air layering" --> Marcotting -- Mannalem ( talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I recently added an edit under pharmacological uses for African Mango as follows: A recent study revealed that antioxidant activity of the fermented Mango leaves generally increased with increasing fermented extract concentration as did the fermented extracts' polyphenol and flavonoid contents.[5] The antioxidant properties of fermented mango leaf extracts suggest the fermented extracts may be useful in developing health food and fermentation-based beauty products. But now I see that the entire section has been deleted. Shall I add my edit under uses? Ashweig134 ( talk) 19:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I moved this discussion out of the article to here for 3 main reasons to better discuss among editors whether this section has merit: a) the overall research quality reviewed in the publication by Onakpoya et al. is conspicuously poor; b) the conclusions reached, whether showing efficacy for weight loss or not, are equivocal and doubtful about providing anything factually clear for readers of the article; and c) the journal in which the Onakoya paper was published is not a WP:MEDRS-quality source, and the suggestion that actual weight loss occurred (a "medical" statement) does not seem credible based on the weaknesses of the studies reviewed. Accordingly, including the section on clinical research hinting at evidence of weight loss efficacy gives WP:UNDUE significance to the publication and statements it includes, whether effective for weight control or not.
Following is the removed section and this is the Onakpoya source cited:
A review of clinical research on consuming dika for weight management identified three randomized clinical trials, all of which reported significant positive effect, however all three had irregularities in testing methods and reporting. The review concluded, "The results from available RCTs suggest that I. gabonensis supplementation causes significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference. However, the reporting of the methodology of the RCTs is poor and all the trials are of short duration. Until good quality trials demonstrating its efficacy are available, I. gabonensis cannot be recommended as a weight loss aid."
Let's review it here and invite other editors for opinions on WP:MEDRS quality. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This text and reference below were removed from the article for the following reasons: a) a study that concludes the RCTs had "irregularities in testing methods and reporting" means the studies were poorly done and their results are spurious and unreliable, i.e., not worth including in an encyclopedia as if they were factual; b) the journal in which the study was reported is a low-quality journal and not a WP:MEDRS quality source per this WP guideline. The Journal of Dietary Supplements has an impact factor of 1.05 (indicative of poor quality), far too low to be used as a medical source. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Disputed edit removed: A review of clinical research on consuming dika for weight management identified three randomized clinical trials, all of which reported significant positive effect, however all three had irregularities in testing methods and reporting. The review concluded, "The results from available RCTs suggest that I. gabonensis supplementation causes significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference. However, the reporting of the methodology of the RCTs is poor and all the trials are of short duration. Until good quality trials demonstrating its efficacy are available, I. gabonensis cannot be recommended as a weight loss aid. [1]
To add to this article: a photo of the fruits. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done - unfortunately, there are no pictures of fruits in Wikimedia Commons. Zefr ( talk) 14:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)