Talk:Roselle (plant)

Untitled
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)


 * 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)

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)


 * They are not supposed to be? Can you cite the guideline against recipes? --Vizcarra 19:38, 15 November 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)

Requested move
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)


 * Apparently, in the Caribbean the plant is called sorrel, in Mexico it is called jamaica, and the systematic name is Hibiscus sabdariffa. Pilatus 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The result is so far:

Anyone else opposed to the move? --Vizcarra 00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3 vote to rename to Roselle (Plant)
 * 1 vote to rename to Hibiscus sabdariffa
 * 1 votes to keep and not rename
 * 1 vote to keep


 * Yes, me. I would prefer to see the page at Hibiscus sabdariffa, the systematic name. There is a reason for systematic names, those are unambiguous. Often enough, the same common name is used for different plants, and you also have different names referring to the same plant. Pilatus 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Jamaica (drink) regarding the merge (or not) of the beverage with this article.


 * Before we can start voting there ought to be a discussion with User:Guettarda to try and find some consensus. This hasn't taken place here, and the discussion about the Jamaica tea is still ongoing. Pilatus 01:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It has taken place, briefly at the AFD. And the rest here, the discussion is always open, until concensus is reached. Having people vote, helps to make it clear where we are at. --Vizcarra 18:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that voting on an AFD nom should be considered in on an RM. As in all cases like this, I don't think it matters too much where the article is, given the network of redirects.  I prefer the systematic name, since it avoids confusion, and second choice Bissap, since this is the name in the major area of production and consumption, third choice "sorrel" (appropriately disambig'd) since this is the name used in the English-speaking countries where it is most widely cultivated.  Guettarda 18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "I don't think that voting on an AFD nom should be considered in on an RM" Pilatus clarified this yesterday.
 * If you don't mind where the article should be... I do. I prefer the English name versus an African name and the common name (according to Britannica, Purdue University, University of Florida, etc.) over the scientific name. The point is to make the article conspicuous, and being listed with its most common (and English) name in categories, will help achieve this. So, then again, if you don't mind either, I would rather have it named "Roselle (plant)". --Vizcarra 18:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This page has convinced me that H. sabdariffa is indeed called roselle in English. As User:Guettarda says, with the systematic name there is no risk of confusion (see black cumin for an example, which isn't the same as cumin); on the other hand the name "roselle" seems unique to H. sabdariffa and both Naming conventions (fauna) and WikiProject_Tree_of_Life prefer the English name if it's unique. So my preference for the systematic name isn't strong. Pilatus 19:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Roselle is one name in English, but the Purdue site really only reflects American usage - and the plant is a very minor one in the US. In the English-speaking Caribbean it's sorrel.  Bissap is probably the name used where it is most widely consumed.  It's possible to make a good argument for any of the names, and given this ambiguity I would favour the systematic name to avoid confusion.  Guettarda 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorrel would be the worst choice, as in Europe it is used for R. acetosa, the leaves of which are used in salads for their pleasant acidic flavour. The similar flavour and use of roselle leaves has led to the plant called the same name. Pilatus 20:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Roselle is one name in English" and the most "common" in the language. Not according to me, but according to universities and Encyclopedia Britannica. The EB article is listed as "Roselle". If English-speaking institutions called it Roselle, I don't know any strong reason to use a localized (Caribbean) name for it. Especially considering the small percentage that Caribbean English-speakers represent amongst the hundreds of millions of English-speakers in the non-Caribbean world. And I checked sources, and China and Thailand are the main producers of Roselle. --Vizcarra 20:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is English-language wikipedia. The OED lists Roselle ("the red or Indian sorrel, Hibiscus sabdariffa") attested since 1857; it doesn't know "bissap", which seems to be the name used in French-speaking West Africa. ("Bissap" clocks up some 13000 Google hits on French-language pages). Pilatus 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm up for renaming it to the English term. As far as I understand, Guettarda does not have a strong preference. Can I rename it and we can move on? --Vizcarra 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad that we could sort this out. --Vizcarra 21:25, 17 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)

Sectioning
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.

Merge gongura to Roselle
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)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
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)

how are the calyces dried?
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)

wine
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)

Mexico
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)
 * 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)

"Herbal medicine" (heart health) benefits are rather more positive?
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)

To add to article
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)