This 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 18 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Diondior ( article contribs).
I'd rather not have the 2 page merged as Bissap fruits have a range of applications (natural dies, food supplement on account of high flavonoid content, etc) quite wider than "jamaica' beverage.
Everything in the "Jamaica" article is in this article except the recipe - and recipes are not supposed to be in Wikipedia articles. In addition the Bissap article is largely about the drink. If you think that there are two articles here, please outline what should be in each article; as it stands, neither article is long enough. Guettarda 01:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the AfD tag, the discussion is here. Page moves and organization (such as the name of the plant and name of the tea brewed from it) ought to be discussed here. Pilatus 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Roselle is the English name for this plant, the current name Bissap is the African name. InBritannica calls the plant Roselle. Vizcarra 00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else opposed to the move? -- Vizcarra 00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As starter of the page, I'd rather see it moved to the scientific name (as far as I can tell, that's the third vote for this). - MPF 00:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The article title should be either Roselle or Hibiscus sabdariffa. The Mexican article should be merged into it. — Gulliver ✉ 03:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The se caralho ction on Jamaica describes the resulting beverage as a "tea", so why is it in a separate section labeled "Fountain Drink"? It seems like the two sections ought to be merged and cleaned up.
I oppose this. Gongura has special significance in Andhra Cuisine. It is not just about the plant. The significance is about the pickle that is made with this plant. So this article should not be merged with Roselle. Sumanthk 09:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
does anyone know how they are dried? do they just put them under the sun or heat them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.143.13 ( talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
i have removed a bit about the wine being delicous as this is a opinuin. not fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.48.99 ( talk) 15:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Damn!
The article says the following:
* In Mexico, 'agua de Flor de Jamaica' (water flavored with roselle) frequently called "agua de Jamaica" is most often homemade. Also, since many untrained consumers mistake the calyces of the plant to be dried flowers, it is widely, but erroneously, believed that the drink is made from the flowers of the non-existent "Jamaica plant".
That misleading information implies that we the Mexicans group the so called "Jamaica plant" along with other non-existent beings such as the unicorn, the kraken and the chupacabras.
Besides, what kind of training does a consumer need to cease in believing in such imaginary plants?
Well, laughs aside, my best regards,
Anon. Mex. Usr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.124.179 ( talk) 22:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The short "herbal medicine" section implies that three fairly recent meta-surveys suggest that no conclusions be drawn. But when I read the most recent of them, [25], I find that the quote (here in Footnotes) from its Abstract has been selectively chosen, and reads:
This comprehensive body of evidence suggests that extracts of HS are promising as a treatment of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, however more high quality animal and human studies informed by actual therapeutic practices are needed to provide recommendations for use that have the potential for widespread public health benefit.
(I've italicised the bit that was missed out, leaving a wholly more negative conclusion.)
And earlier in the Abstract, it has some extremely positive statements for High Blood Pressure sufferers, from RCTs (randomized controlled trials):
And when I look elsewhere in PubMed, I find an even more recent meta-survey -
...whose Abstract comes to a most definite positive conclusion on its effect on blood pressure ("SBP" by ~7.5, and "DBP" by ~3.5):
So perhaps a slightly more positive section entitled something like "heart health" is called for instead?
PS: the "selective quote" I complained about in [25], and indeed the final sentence in the new Abstract I quote - "Further well designed trials are necessary to validate these results" - are (unless I am greatly mistaken) just examples of how research papers typically end their conclusions: a plea for funding to continue, imploring people not to conclude that we have found answers and can stop now! So, it is perhaps unfortunate to see such a quote appearing as "evidence" in Wikipedia.
- - - - -
(9Nov17 addition) Actually, the current article is even more misleading than I thought - the Cochrane meta-analysis simply concluded that:
So, unless someone can say here why I shouldn't, I am going to edit this section to refer instead to the second meta-analysis, which is five years more recent than the "found no studies" one currently referred to, and which did indeed find five RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that met its criteria, and which came to a very definite conclusion on benefits versus hypertension.
Craytina ( talk) 16:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: the compound(s) that contribute to the sour taste of the roselle's flowers. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This 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 18 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Diondior ( article contribs).
I'd rather not have the 2 page merged as Bissap fruits have a range of applications (natural dies, food supplement on account of high flavonoid content, etc) quite wider than "jamaica' beverage.
Everything in the "Jamaica" article is in this article except the recipe - and recipes are not supposed to be in Wikipedia articles. In addition the Bissap article is largely about the drink. If you think that there are two articles here, please outline what should be in each article; as it stands, neither article is long enough. Guettarda 01:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the AfD tag, the discussion is here. Page moves and organization (such as the name of the plant and name of the tea brewed from it) ought to be discussed here. Pilatus 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Roselle is the English name for this plant, the current name Bissap is the African name. InBritannica calls the plant Roselle. Vizcarra 00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else opposed to the move? -- Vizcarra 00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As starter of the page, I'd rather see it moved to the scientific name (as far as I can tell, that's the third vote for this). - MPF 00:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The article title should be either Roselle or Hibiscus sabdariffa. The Mexican article should be merged into it. — Gulliver ✉ 03:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The se caralho ction on Jamaica describes the resulting beverage as a "tea", so why is it in a separate section labeled "Fountain Drink"? It seems like the two sections ought to be merged and cleaned up.
I oppose this. Gongura has special significance in Andhra Cuisine. It is not just about the plant. The significance is about the pickle that is made with this plant. So this article should not be merged with Roselle. Sumanthk 09:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
does anyone know how they are dried? do they just put them under the sun or heat them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.143.13 ( talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
i have removed a bit about the wine being delicous as this is a opinuin. not fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.48.99 ( talk) 15:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Damn!
The article says the following:
* In Mexico, 'agua de Flor de Jamaica' (water flavored with roselle) frequently called "agua de Jamaica" is most often homemade. Also, since many untrained consumers mistake the calyces of the plant to be dried flowers, it is widely, but erroneously, believed that the drink is made from the flowers of the non-existent "Jamaica plant".
That misleading information implies that we the Mexicans group the so called "Jamaica plant" along with other non-existent beings such as the unicorn, the kraken and the chupacabras.
Besides, what kind of training does a consumer need to cease in believing in such imaginary plants?
Well, laughs aside, my best regards,
Anon. Mex. Usr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.124.179 ( talk) 22:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The short "herbal medicine" section implies that three fairly recent meta-surveys suggest that no conclusions be drawn. But when I read the most recent of them, [25], I find that the quote (here in Footnotes) from its Abstract has been selectively chosen, and reads:
This comprehensive body of evidence suggests that extracts of HS are promising as a treatment of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, however more high quality animal and human studies informed by actual therapeutic practices are needed to provide recommendations for use that have the potential for widespread public health benefit.
(I've italicised the bit that was missed out, leaving a wholly more negative conclusion.)
And earlier in the Abstract, it has some extremely positive statements for High Blood Pressure sufferers, from RCTs (randomized controlled trials):
And when I look elsewhere in PubMed, I find an even more recent meta-survey -
...whose Abstract comes to a most definite positive conclusion on its effect on blood pressure ("SBP" by ~7.5, and "DBP" by ~3.5):
So perhaps a slightly more positive section entitled something like "heart health" is called for instead?
PS: the "selective quote" I complained about in [25], and indeed the final sentence in the new Abstract I quote - "Further well designed trials are necessary to validate these results" - are (unless I am greatly mistaken) just examples of how research papers typically end their conclusions: a plea for funding to continue, imploring people not to conclude that we have found answers and can stop now! So, it is perhaps unfortunate to see such a quote appearing as "evidence" in Wikipedia.
- - - - -
(9Nov17 addition) Actually, the current article is even more misleading than I thought - the Cochrane meta-analysis simply concluded that:
So, unless someone can say here why I shouldn't, I am going to edit this section to refer instead to the second meta-analysis, which is five years more recent than the "found no studies" one currently referred to, and which did indeed find five RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that met its criteria, and which came to a very definite conclusion on benefits versus hypertension.
Craytina ( talk) 16:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: the compound(s) that contribute to the sour taste of the roselle's flowers. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)