Talk:Roselle (plant)

message: 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.
:We cannot have two articles that substantially duplicate one another.  What you are suggesting is to separate the drink from the other applications of H. sabdariffa.  This would only be reasonable if the unmerged article would be too long.  In other words, when the article gets too long for a single article, it might be reasonable to split them into two articles.  However, then we have the problem of what to name the merged article, since it would have to be placed under the most common name in English.  Guettarda 02:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This variety of hibiscus is also commonly known simply as hibiscus, and is commonly used in a variety of teas besides the Jamaica drink.  It's the main ingredient in the Celestial Seasonings Zinger teas - Red Zinger, Lemon Zinger, Raspberry Zinger, etc.
*I'm, going to have to agree with the two unsigned users. One article is about the plant, one article is about a popular health drink. It doesn't seem that the articles duplicate one another majorly, and they would be of better use as individual articles. Saberwyn 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: They are not supposed to be? Can you cite the guideline against recipes? --Vizcarra 19:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge gongura to Roselle 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: 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)
thread_title: how are the calyces dried?

message: 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)
thread_title: wine

message: 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)
replies: text: That whole paragraph is poorly written, but the sentence was particularly confusing/misleading. I have removed it. Plantdrew (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: 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):
:In RCTs, the daily consumption of a tea or extract produced from HS calyxes significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in adults with pre to moderate essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes. In addition, HS tea was as effective at lowering blood pressure as the commonly used blood pressure medication Captropril, but less effective than Lisinopril.
And when I look elsewhere in PubMed, I find an even more recent meta-survey - 
:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25875025
:"Effect of sour tea (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) on arterial hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials."
...whose Abstract comes to a most definite positive conclusion on its effect on blood pressure ("SBP" by ~7.5, and "DBP" by ~3.5):
:RESULTS:
:Fixed-effect meta-regression indicated a significant effect of H. sabdariffa supplementation in lowering both SBP (weighed mean difference -7.58 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -9.69 to -5.46, P < 0.00001) and DBP (weighed mean difference -3.53 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -5.16 to -1.89, P < 0.0001). These effects were inversely associated with baseline BP values, and were robust in sensitivity analyses.
:CONCLUSION:
:This meta-analysis of RCTs showed a significant effect of H. sabdariffa in lowering both SBP and DBP. Further well designed trials are necessary to validate these results.
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:
:No studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria.
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)
thread_title:  "Herbal medicine" (heart health) benefits are rather more positive? 

message: 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)
thread_title: To add to article