Talk:Chamomile

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added a number of external links to some U.S. Government sources that I think provide what you're looking for, and hopefully someone will incorporate here at a future date. My only real question, here, is the nature of this article. Is it a disambiguation (in which case it should be formally turned into one) or is it a general article about all kinds of chamomile, in which case it should be re-worked into a less disambiguatory form and lots of other info should be added. -Miskaton (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I broke down and added the very highest level review of some of those sources that I could to the article. I basically just listed the examples of conditions that have any promising data and known side-effects. It's only a start, but at least it's that. -Miskaton (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tea doesn't taste bad 

message: 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)
replies: text: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/chamomile Source #3 on main page is broken, this is a corrected link. 2601:540:8200:135:2B28:91AD:BE72:32B8 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIH study - Chamomile's potential as an anti-anxiety medication 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Medicinal/alternative therapy uses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Actual information regarding growing the plant?  

message: I checked the sources that give the following claims: 
It is known to reduce stress. 
Chamomile is also useful as an antidiuretichttp://www.isnare.com/?aid=656466&ca=Wellness%2C+Fitness+and+Diet.
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)
thread_title:  Very poor sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: I had the same reaction. One of two things ought to be done. Either, every claim about usage and effects should be made species specific, or this article should be changed to be about the most common variety, Matricaria recutita, with secondary notes about the other varieties also being called chamomile. I checked the references of the two claims in the Medical uses section and all of the studies referenced used Matricaria recutita, so I've edited those claims to specify German chamomile. I don't have time at the moment to check and edit all of the other claims in other sections. --Ericjs (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading the Species section again, I realize there are really only two species being called chamomile, the others merely have the word chamomile in their name. There might be chemical analysis data to show whether they both contain the same active compounds, and if they do it would be reasonable to simply cite that let the rest of the article talk generally about chamomile. --Ericjs (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity of common name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Etymology" section is technically wrong. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plant info please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflicting info re tea versus medicine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fake and not fake 

message: On Medscape
* Tiglic acid esters: antispasmodic, anti-inflammatory
* Chamazulene: antispasmodic, anti-inflammatory, anti-allergic, antibacterial
* Apigenin: anti-inflammatory (comparable to NSAIDs)
* Azulene: anti-inflammatory
* Umbelliferone: fungicidal
* Bisabolols: antimicrobial, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, antispasmodic
Jamplevia (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article contained the phrase "chamomile is perceived as having antispasmodic effects" how would that not be true and supportable? Jamplevia (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a vague statement ("is perceived"), is not scientifically established as true, and has no MEDRS source. It has no value in an encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you better go look for it and fix it because it's out there. Jamplevia (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's misinformation "out there" on many topics. The role of good editing is to screen out the nonsense like this one and adhere to reliable sources. Zefr (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism of Action 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RE: Medicinal Effects