 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
References
editWould it be possible to turn some of the External links into formal references/citations? Courtland 04:22, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
source breast cancer entry
editThis is what triggered the small edit I inserted on the bottom of the page. I am aware it may get purged as its a research work, but I hope I worded it in search a way to show its still not proven. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the reference; I have added it to the article. Citing research in progress is good as long as we identify it as such. Kingdon 15:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
composition
editwhat is in the other 200mg/1g capsule of evening primrose oil. The labels for the product do not say and it did not appear to be in your article.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.81.5 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Lead too long and new article needed for oil
editThe lead is too long. Perhaps a history section can be added that would take on most of the paragraphs above the content menu. Maybe then the content menu can be moved higher.
Also, evening primrose oil seems like it should have it's own article instead of being redirected to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.187.110 (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Uses of Evening Primrose Oil
editThe current page states that there is little conclusive evidence of medicinal effects. Although this may be so, surely most people would expect the page to state that some users believe it to have benefits for, inter alia, PMT and period pains. I think that some of the text to this effect that has been previously excised should be reinstated. Arrivisto (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Evidence of medical effects
editI fully agree with Arrivisto that the statements under medical effects focus on the negative. Stating that "A Cochrane meta-analysis published in April, 2013, found evening primrose oil capsules and borage oil to be ineffective for eczema." This is not very useful, because when I consult a dictionary, such as Wikipedia, I want to learn about the possible applications of something and read what it does not do. I have taken the liberty to delete this entry.
Instead I have quoted from [1]: Evening primrose is a soothing remedy for coughs associated with colds. It has also been used for mental depression, its effectiveness perhaps due to a stimulating effect on the liver, spleen, digestive apparatus. It can also be made into an ointment useful for rashes and other skin irritations. The entire plant is edible.
According to [2] Evening Primrose is astringent and sedative. The drug extracted from this plant ... has been tested in various directions, and has been employed with success in the teatment of gastro-intestinal disorders of a functional origin, astma and whooping cough. It has proved of service in dydpepsia, torpor of the liver, and in certain female complaints, such as pelvic fullness.
If anybody has any reason to doubt the effectiveness of herbal remedies, s/he can add a little disclaimer that ordinary schoolmedicine has failed to verify the effectiveness of natuarl plant medicines and homeopatic remedies. This would, of course, apply not just to evening primrose, but to a multitude of other remedies that have been sucessfully employed throughout the ages.
Hskoppek (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lust, John (1974). The Herb Book. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-23827-2.
- ^ Grieve, M. (1971). A Modrn Herbal. Dover Publication. ISBN 0-486-22799-5.
Absence of Oenothera lamarckiana and Oenothera gigas
editThe Talk:Evolution/FAQ page mentions field observations of Oenothera lamarckiana and Oenothera gigas as evidence of Evolution, and wikilinks both names (see its Q5). Both links redirect to this article, but it contains no reference at all to either of them: neither does the separate article List of Oenothera species. Ought this to be addressed, either by additional text here and in the List article, or by creating and linking articles these species? (I myself am very much Not A Botanist.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.248.159.54 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Auditory response
editHello @Zefr: I included[2] your name and an explanation in my edit summary so that you would understand. I agreed that the citation you removed was primary and I said that it was worse than you had understood. I resolved this problem. What is primary[3]? Invasive Spices (talk) 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I question the use of this content and source: Based on observations of evening primroses (Oenothera drummondii), a study discovered that within minutes of sensing the sound waves of nearby bee wings through flower petals, the concentration of the sugar in the plant's nectar was increased by an average of 20 percent. Experiments were also conducted on flowers with the petals removed. No change in nectar production was noted, indicating that it is indeed the flowers that have the job of the ears. This is conjecture and primary research at best, unconfirmed by a WP:SCIRS review, and is more like a news report, WP:NOTNEWS. It is unencyclopedic content. Zefr (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
unconfirmed by a [[WP:SCIRS]] reviewYou should read my edit. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 December 2022 (UTC)- From Kumar: "a highly debatable topic among researchers worldwide" indicates preliminary science yet to be widely confirmed, as in a SCIRS review that supports encyclopedic content. WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7 applies. Zefr (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- What does that text have to do with Veits? Invasive Spices (talk) 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- An hypothesis from primary research in a letters journal = unencyclopedic, not a SCIRS review. I have nothing more to say on this discussion. Zefr (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Then you leave me no choice but to revert because that is difficult to read and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Zefr you said above that you would not continue to discuss. Revert warring[4] after refusing to explain is very disruptive. Your objections both here on Talk: and in that edit summary are incoherent. You have justified other edit wars by objecting that research is "WP:PRIMARY" despite WP:SECONDARY citations.
- Then you leave me no choice but to revert because that is difficult to read and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- An hypothesis from primary research in a letters journal = unencyclopedic, not a SCIRS review. I have nothing more to say on this discussion. Zefr (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- What does that text have to do with Veits? Invasive Spices (talk) 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- From Kumar: "a highly debatable topic among researchers worldwide" indicates preliminary science yet to be widely confirmed, as in a SCIRS review that supports encyclopedic content. WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7 applies. Zefr (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Again here. This may necessitate a conversation regarding WP:COMPETENCE. Do you want to have a conversation about WP:COMPETENCE? Invasive Spices (talk) 30 December 2022 (UTC)
In light of the lack of response in weeks and stated unwillingness[5] to respond I will soon restore this[6] very well supported text. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 January 2023 (UTC)